NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 1

RICA 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL 

D HEALTH 

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND 

HEALTH 

+ + 

ETING 

 + + 

 a.m., 

ati Marriott North at Union Centre, 

presiding. 

rman 

er 

mber 

 

WANDA I. MUNN, Member 

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, Member 

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member 

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Member 

PHILLIP M. SCHOFIELD, Member 

UNITED S ATES OF AME T

+ + + + + 

SAFETY AN

+ + + + + 

WO KER R

+ + + 

6 rd 3 ME

+ + +

TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2009 

+ + + + + 

 The meeting convened, at 9:00

in the West Chester III Ballroom at the 

Cincinn

6189 Muhlhauser Road, West Chester, Ohio, Paul 

L. Ziemer, Chairman, 

PRESENT: 

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Chai

JOSIE M. BEACH, Memb

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Me

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member

MARK GRIFFON, Member 

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 2

d) 

 M. KATZ, Acting Designated Federal 

 Official 

OMMENT PARTICIPANTS: 

 Contractor 

ald Medical 

ker-Perkins 

ald Medical 

 

A, Oak Ridge Hospital 

 NIOSH 

H 

E/Dow Madison 

OSH 

 

N, SC&A 

 

 

erkins 

NELSON, CHARLES, NIOSH 

NETON, JIM, NIOSH 

PRESLEY, LOUISE 

RAFKY, MICHAEL, HHS 

RUTHERFORD, LaVON, NIOSH 

PRESENT: (Continue

THEODORE

REGISTERED AND/OR PUBLIC C

ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH

AL-NABULSI, ISAF, DOE 

BARRIE, TERRIE, ANWAG 

BEATTY, EVERETT "RAY", Fern

BRADFORD, SHANNON, NIOSH 

BRENNAN, DAVID, Ba

BRENNAN, STEPHEN, Baker-Perkins 

BROCK, DENISE, NIOSH 

BROEHM, JASON, CDC 

CALLAWAY, ALLEN "MOOCH", Fern

CAMPBELL, EMMA, NIOSH 

CARIGLIA, LUCREZIA, Norton Company 

CRAWFORD, CHRIS, NIOSH

DOLL, LOU, BTNMSP 

EDMUNDSON-CUMMINGS, SAR

FESTER, THOMAS 

FITZGERALD, JOSEPH, SC&A 

GILBERTSON, TRACEY,

GLOVER, SAM, NIOS

HANSON, JOHN, SIU

HINNEFELD, STU, NI

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS

HUGHES, LARA, NIOSH 

KINMAN, JOSH, NIOSH 

KNOX, WAYNE 

KOTSCH, JEFF, US DOL 

LEWIS, MARK, ATL 

MAKHIJANI, ARJU

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A

McFEE, MATT, ORAU Team

MURASKY, ALEX, Baker-P
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 3

am 

SH 

 JO, ORAU Team 

ZIEMER, MARILYN 

SHARFI, MUTTY, ORAU Te

TOMES, TOM, NIO

WADE, LEW, NIOSH 

ZACCHERO, MARY
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 4

-T-S 

Page

C-O-N-T-E-N

................. 5 

.... 6 

................. 22 

.................. 62 

.................. 72 

.. 119 

.. 141 

.. 162 

nefeld, NIOSH.................... 195 

.. 210 

.. 238 

Public Comment............................ 270 

Adjourn................................... 287 

Welcome 

 Chairman Paul Ziemer.....

Oak Ridge Hospital SEC Petition 

 Lara Hughes, NIOSH....................

 Petitioner..............

Baker-Perkins Co. SEC Petition 

 LaVon Rutherford, NIOSH

 Petitioner.............

Lake Ontario Ordinance Works 

SEC Petition

 James Neton, NIOSH....................

Science Update 

 James Neton, NIOSH....................

Dose Reconstruction Program Report 

 Stu Hinnefeld, NIOSH..................

Norton Company SEC Petition

 Stu Hin

 Petitioner............................

 

Blockson Chemical SEC Petition: 

Radon Model 

 Mark Griffon, Member..................
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 5

1 

2 

3 ning, 

4 wo of 

5 orker 

6 re in West Chester, Ohio, 

7 sub b o

8 that 

9 

10 exception of Dr. Melius, who was called away 

11 er. 

12 usual 

13 attendance with us 

14 in the registration booklet in the foyer, if 

15 

16 are 

17 

18 

19 

20 We are going to begin this morning 

21 with one of several SEC petitions that the 

22 Board will consider today, the first of which 

 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

9:13 a.m. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Good mor

everyone. We are ready to begin day t

the Advisory Board on Radiation and W

Health meeting he

ur f Cincinnati. 

 Just for the record, I show

all Board members are present today with the 

unexpectedly but will be rejoining us lat

 I will just start with my 

reminder to register your 

you have not already done that. 

 And also a reminder that there

agendas and information packets and papers on 

the back shelf for your use during the 

meeting, as well. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 6

1 

2 

3 ation 

4 unity 

5 ioners 

6 make 

7 we will have an 

8 n. 

9 Dr. 

10 

11 r and 

12 giving me the opportunity to 

13 present this NIOSH evaluation for the SEC for 

14 

15 is a 

16 was 

17 

18 

19 

20 The covered period for this 

21 facility ranges from 1943 to 1959 when it was 

22 operated under a contract under the Manhattan 

is an SEC petition, an 83.13 petition for Oak 

Ridge Hospital. Dr. Hughes, Lara Hughes of 

NIOSH is going to present NIOSH's Evalu

Report and then we will have an opport

perhaps for one or more of the petit

who, I believe, are on the phone lines to

comment as well. And then

opportunity for Board discussio

Hughes, welcome. 

 DR. HUGHES: Thank you. Good 

morning, everybody. Thank you, Dr. Zieme

the Board, for 

Oak Ridge Hospital. 

 Okay. The Oak Ridge Hospital

covered sited under EEOICPA and it

established in 1943 as the community hospital 

for the Town of Oak Ridge. And it opened in 

1943 as a 50-bed facility. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 7

1 

2 Energy Commission. 

3 , the 

4 r 300 

5 , the 

6 uced and part of this hospital 

7 as t 

8 Ridge 

9 

10 

11 ed to 

12 investigate cancer treatment using 

13 idge. 

14 nused 

15 what is 

16 called ORINS, the Oak Ridge Institute for 

17 

18 

19 t not 

20 until 1950 it became an operational hospital. 

21 So in this period from 1950 to 1959, the Oak 

22 Ridge Hospital was connected to the ORINS 

Engineering District and later the Atomic 

 And by 1945, as Oak Ridge grew

capacity of the hospital grew up to ove

beds. And after World War II ended

capacity was red

w pu in standby. 

 Now, in 1949, the Oak 

Institute for Nuclear Studies was founded and 

it was meant to be a part of this, the socalled medical division, was start

radioisotopes that were produced in Oak R

 So, in 1949, a wing, the u

wing of this hospital was assigned to

Nuclear Studies to become a cancer hospital. 

 And during the period from 1950 to 

1959 -- ORINS was established in 1949 bu
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 8

1 

2 

3 e a 

4 they 

5 fairly 

6 was not 

7 connected to the Oak Ridge Hospital anymore. 

8 e Oak 

9 

10 

11 ORINS 

12 actually built another 

13 wo or the 

14 

15 ions, 

16 quite 

17 

18 

19 as a 

20 community hospital, it had a radiology 

21 department which did diagnostic and 

22 therapeutic x-ray treatments and also in the 

Cancer Hospital. And by 1960, the Atomic 

Energy Commission had ceased to support this 

hospital and Oak Ridge Hospital becam

private medical institution. And 

actually built a new facility. It was 

close by and the ORINS cancer facility

 Here is a photograph of th

Ridge Hospital. This was taken some time in 

the late 1940s and the circled smaller wing 

that you can see was what became the 

cancer institute and 

t -st y wing to the end of this, at 

empty spot beside the wing. 

 Now, as for site operat

obviously this was a hospital, so it was 

different from what typically is going on at 

the DOE weapons complex facilities. So from 

1943 to 1959, obviously it was -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 9

1 

2 

3 ch was 

4 h more larger5 ca ex

6 the 

7 ital 

8 this 

9 

10 

11 f the 

12 facilities that was 

13 needed to operate a hospital. So, it had to 

14 

15 tation 

16 eeded 

17 

18 

19 with 

20 radioisotopes that were radioactive were put 

21 in the morgue of the Oak Ridge Hospital 

22 because the ORINS hospital did not have such 

'50s it had a smaller radioisotope lab that 

did state-of-the-art cancer treatment. This 

was not the same as what ORINS did, whi

much more experimental and muc

s le perimental cancer treatment. 

 Now, in addition to that,

hospital supported the ORINS Cancer Hosp

which was, as you could see in 

photograph, it was a much smaller facility. 

It had a maximum capacity of 30 patients. So, 

this ORINS part did not have all o

equipment or all of the 

rely on the Oak Ridge Hospital. 

 For example, we have documen

that indicates that the patients that n

operations were actually brought into the Oak 

Ridge Hospital for operations and also that 

patients that had been treated 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 10

1 

2 

3 ology 

4 nd in 

5 Oak 

6 ses, 

7 ntract 

8 staff 

9 

10 

11 tal varied to quite a large extent so it 

12 didn't always need as much staff as other 

13 

14 tion, 

15 ived 

16 NIOSH 

17 

18 

19 nal monitoring data. 

20 The Federal Register notice was published 

21 March 3rd and on June 30th of this year, NIOSH 

22 issued its Evaluation Report. 

facilities. 

 In addition, ORINS used facilities 

such as kitchen, pharmacy, radi

department of the Oak Ridge Hospital, a

addition, it relied on the staff of the

Ridge Hospital such as physicians, nur

aides, janitors, orderlies, per co

agreement that would go over and supply 

services whenever needed. And this was done 

because the patient load of the ORINS cancer 

hospi

times. 

 As for the petition, this peti

SEC-00140 (sic, SEC-00137) was rece

January 14, 2009. February 17, 2009, 

issued a professional judgment that the 

petition qualified for evaluation based on the 

unavailability of perso
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 11

1 

2 

3 n Oak 

4 rough 

5 er 31, 1959, the end of the covered 

6 er . 

7 the 

8 all 

9 

10 

11 1959, 

12 t the 

13 ity was the reason that 

14 there might have been an exposure potential at 

15 

16 ended 

17 

18 

19 ys, 

20 aggregating at least 250 workdays from May 15, 

21 1950, through December 31, 1959, or in 

22 combination with workdays within the 

The petitioner-proposed SEC class 

definition included all workers who worked in 

any location at the Oak Ridge Hospital i

Ridge Tennessee from June 30, 1958 th

Decemb

p iod

 NIOSH decided to expand 

evaluated class to the following: 

employees who worked in any location at the 

Oak Ridge Hospital in Oak Ridge, Tennessee 

from May 15, 1950 through December 31, 

and this was based on the knowledge tha

ORINS cancer facil

the Oak Ridge Hospital. 

 And finally, the NIOSH-recomm

class definition is all employees who worked 

in any location at the Oak Ridge Hospital in 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee for a number of workda
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 12

1 

2 classes of employees in the SEC. 

3 do an 

4 on, 

5 nical 

6 case 

7 also 

8 that 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 Site 

14 and 

15 nd we 

16 ormer 

17 

18 ORINS Cancer Hospital. And we also looked 

19 ancer 

20 treatments with radioisotope. 

21 I would like to add that this 

22 evaluation was done by NIOSH since the NIOSH 

parameters established for one or more other 

 As usually done by NIOSH, we 

extensive search for available informati

which includes ORAU-published Tech

Information Bulletins. We look at the 

files in the NIOSH databases. We 

contacted ORAU, which is the organization

followed ORINS -- was actually more or less 

one and the same organization. They renamed 

in the mid-'60s, I believe. I might be wrong 

on that. 

 We looked at the NIOSH 

Research Database, the documentation

affidavits provided by the petitioner, a

interviewed three individuals who were f

workers at the Oak Ridge Hospital and the 

into scientific publications related to c
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 13

1 

2 with this facility. 

3 claims 

4 ility, 

5 nition 

6 have 

7 f the 

8 ring 

9 

10 

11 n the 

12 sure 

13 since 

14 tal. 

15 that 

16 a 

17 

18 

19 nded adding a class for the 

20 ORINS personnel in 2006, based on 

21 infeasibility to reconstruct internal doses 

22 for ORINS employees. 

contractor, ORAU, has a conflict of interest 

 When looking at the NIOSH 

database, we have 17 claims for this fac

12 of which met the proposed class defi

from 1950 to 1959. Dose reconstructions

been completed on ten claims and none o

cases have internal or external monito

information for the Oak Ridge Hospital 

employment. 

 Now let me go back to explai

rationale why we think there was an expo

potential at the Oak Ridge Hospital, 

after all it was only a community hospi

However, from the research, we determined 

the ORINS Cancer Hospital created

radioactive exposure potential for the 

attached Oak Ridge Hospital personnel and 

NIOSH has recomme
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 14

1 

2 

3 spital 

4 rt to 

5 tients 

6 and 

7 ORINS 

8 The 

9 

10 

11 show 

12 y the hospital, 

13 although they might have worked in the ORINS 

14 

15 and 

16 Ridge 

17 

18 

19 the 

20 patients that had been injected with 

21 radioisotopes, were present in operating 

22 rooms, in the morgue, the radiology 

We have come to the conclusion that 

a similar exposure potential existed to an 

unknown number of Oak Ridge Ho

employees, based on them providing suppo

the ORINS cancer hospital by bringing pa

into the Oak Ridge Hospital for treatment

by allowing staff to go into the 

facility to support operations there. 

staff would be employed by the Oak Ridge 

Hospital, so any kind of claim they would 

file, their employment would most likely

that they were employed b

cancer facility from time to time. 

 So therefore, the magnitude

nature of the exposure potential to Oak 

Hospital employees from ORINS was varied and 

essentially unknown. From memos and reports, 

we know that so-called hot patients, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 15

1 

2 

3 per ont

4 was 

5 d by 

6 were 

7 Ridge 

8 ere radioactive from being used 

9 

10 

11 were 

12 on of 

13 and were involved in 

14 assisting with caring for and cleaning up 

15 

16 al of 

17 

18 

19 ORINS 

20 Cancer Hospital started operations. The major 

21 internal player is radioiodine, which was used 

22 in cancer treatment and diagnostics at both 

department, and possibly were placed in the 

patient wards of the Oak Ridge Hospital, which 

 c ract agreement, was done. 

 Another memo we found that

concerned with the eating utensils use

patients of the ORINS facility that 

returned to the kitchen in the Oak 

Hospital that w

by these patients. 

 Oak Ridge Hospital staff were 

transferred to ORINS as needed and they

involved in the preparation, administrati

radioactive medicines, 

after radioactive patients. 

 The internal exposure potenti

this operation: we found that there was no 

internal exposure potential at the Oak Ridge 

Hospital before 1950, which is when the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 16

1 

2 in a single year of radioiodine. 

3 , we 

4 latile 

5 950s. 

6 denced 

7 sonal 

8 oring for radioiodine uptake in its 

9 staff. 

10 

11 and 

12 lides 

13 Once 

14 ient, 

15 ctive 

16 ctable 

17 

18 patients who were very sick, some of them, at 

19 ot of 

20 uncontained radioactive material. 

21 The external exposure potential 

22 resulted from standard hospital radiology and 

facilities and ORINS used up to three curies 

 From the medical literature

found that the exposure potential to vo

radioiodine was largely unknown in the 1

 So, and this is more or less evi

because there was no -- ORINS did no per

monit

 In addition, they used a large 

variety of other radionuclides prepared

administered to patients where these nuc

were prepared in radioisotope hoods. 

they have been administered to the pat

they had to deal with uncontained radioa

material to what they termed unpredi

patient behavior. These people were cancer 

least, so they had to deal with a l
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 17

1 

2 

3 ly 

4 itting 

5 m-72, 

6 ray, 

7 found 

8 about 

9 

10 the hospital. So there was definitely an 

11 

12 diation 

13 and 

14 137. These were very strong or high15 activity sources that were used to radiate 

16 

17 

18 

19 rs -- 

20 it was green, yellow, and red, and if the 

21 meter read in the red range, it was meant to 

22 be the patient would have to be -- access to 

radioisotope department at the Oak Ridge 

Hospital, as well as the ORINS operations. 

The ORINS did administer to patients a fair

large amount of beta/gamma-em

radionuclide. A major player was galliu

which has a somewhat above 2 MeV gamma

and with regard to this treatment, we 

some reports where they were concerned 

the radiation fields and the sidewalks outside 

external exposure potential. 

 In addition, ORINS used ra

teletherapy sources, using cobalt-60 

cesiumpatients. 

 And whereas ORINS had restrictions 

in place using a survey meter that was used by 

the nurses and it was calibrated in colo
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 18

1 

2 

3 

4 of 

5 ternal 

6 ocated 

7 were 

8 staff 

9 

10 

11 e that 

12 have 

13 osure 

14 are 

15 e. However, this is for the ORINS 

16 employees, not for Oak Ridge Hospital 

17 

18 

19 before 

20 1964. The petition basis that was submitted 

21 by the petitioner was that the lack of 

22 monitoring data for Oak Ridge Hospital -- that 

the patients had to be restricted. And the 

red area was calibrated to 6.2 micro R per 

hour, which is not terribly low. 

 As for the availability

dosimetry data, it is very short. No in

or external monitoring data have been l

for Oak Ridge Hospital employees. There

memos that indicated that the radiology 

was likely monitored using film badges but 

this data has not been found. 

 For ORINS itself -- the peopl

were actually employed by ORINS seemed to 

been monitored for external radiation exp

and external annual summary data 

availabl

employees. 

 And as mentioned earlier, ORINS 

also did not do any internal monitoring 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 19

1 

2 

3 adionuclides in support of the 

4 RI op

5 found 

6 Ridge 

7 that 

8 l to 

9 

10 

11 NIOSH 

12 lished 

13 g two 

14 it is 

15 iation 

16 with 

17 

18 

19 alth 

20 of the members of the Class. 

21 As for the feasibility 

22 determination, NIOSH has found that the 

there was a lack of monitoring for Oak Ridge 

Hospital employees, although some of them were 

working with r

O NS erations. 

 And the NIOSH evaluation 

that, indeed, monitoring data for Oak 

Hospital employees is not available and 

the ORINS operations had the potentia

cause an undetermined and varied exposure 

potential to Oak Ridge Hospital employees. 

 The evaluation process that 

did consists of a two-pronged test estab

by EEOICPA and consists of the followin

steps. First, it is determined whether 

feasible to estimate the level of rad

doses of individual members of the Class

sufficient accuracy and secondly, we determine 

if there is a reasonable likelihood that 

radiation doses may have endangered the he
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 20

1 

2 

3 ctions 

4 OSH 

5 ient 

6 ocess 

7 e internal 

8 

9 class 

10 

11 on at 

12 ssee 

13 least 

14 rough 

15 with 

16 kdays with the parameters established for 

17 

18 

19 rment 

20 determination, NIOSH has determined that it is 

21 not feasible to complete dose reconstructions 

22 with sufficient accuracy for the period of 

available monitoring records, process 

description, and source-term data are 

insufficient to complete dose reconstru

for the proposed class of employees, and NI

currently lacks access to suffic

monitoring source-term data and pr

information to estimate the complet

and external dose to members of the Class. 

 Therefore, the NIOSH-proposed 

definition for Oak Ridge Hospital employees is 

all employees who worked in any locati

the Oak Ridge Hospital in Oak Ridge, Tenne

for a number of workdays aggregating at 

250 workdays from May 15, 1950 th

December 31, 1959 or in combination 

wor

one or more other classes of employees in the 

SEC. 

 The health-endange
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 21

1 

2 

3 been 

4 icates 

5 n the 

6 and 

7 of 

8 tered 

9 

10 

11 lity 

12 not 

13 all 

14 s not 

15 posure 

16 that 

17 

18 

19 occ ati

20 And that concludes my presentation. 

21 Thank you. Questions, please? 

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you, Dr. 

ORINS operations associated with the Oak Ridge 

Hospital from 1950 to 1959, and that the 

health of the employees covered may have

endangered. The evidence reviewed ind

that an undetermined number of workers i

Class may have received chronic internal

external exposure from a large variety 

internally and externally adminis

radionuclides to treat cancer at the ORINS 

cancer hospital. 

 In summary, the feasibi

determination dose reconstruction is

feasible for internal exposure, for

radionuclides from 1950 to 1959 and it i

feasible for beta and gamma external ex

from 1950 to 1959. NIOSH has determined 

external x-ray exposure to an x-ray technician 

can be reconstructed as well as the 

up onal medical x-ray exposure. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 22

1 

2 questions. Dr. Roessler? 

3 R: Do you want me to 

4 wai unt

5 hear 

6 n the 

7 . And maybe you can sort of 

8 sta by

9 

10 

11 line. If they wish to 

12 speak, just identify who you are and then you 

13 

14 MS. EDMUNDSON-CUMMINGS: I am Sara 

15 Edmundson-Cummings and I would like to speak, 

16 

17 

18 

19 tur d u

20 MS. EDMUNDSON-CUMMINGS: And I am 

21 on a speaker phone. Can you hear me okay? 

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

Hughes. Let me see if there are any immediate 

 MEMBER ROESSLE

t il the petitioners -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, let's

from the petitioners and then we will ope

floor. Yes, okay

nd , too, Lara. 

 But let me ask if any of the 

petitioners -- I think we have two or three 

that may be on the 

may make your statement. 

please. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Could you just 

repeat that again? We got the volume here now 

ne p. Go ahead. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 23

1 

2 

3 mings 

4 ] and 

5 in a 

6 Ethel 

7 nd an 

8 nning 

9 

10 

11 tatic 

12 ty of 

13 ust a 

14 leg 

15 all due to the cancer. She was in 

16 tremendous pain, requiring heavy doses of pain 

17 

18 

19 o Oak 

20 Ridge, and I am teary-eyed. The thing that I 

21 really have a hard time with is the fact that 

22 I can't go home again. I miss mother's hugs 

MS. EDMUNDSON-CUMMINGS: Okay. 

Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak 

to the Board. I am Sara Edmundson-Cum

and my [identifying information redacted

[identifying information redacted] are 

listening mode. We are the children of 

Blythe Edmundson. Our mother was an RN a

employee of the Oak Ridge Hospital begi

in the 1950s. She was an employee of Oak 

Ridge Hospital for 25 years. 

 Our mother died of metas

breast cancer. She had a very poor quali

life with her sternum breaking with j

cough, ribs breaking, and her right

breaking,

medication. 

 Each time I drive I-40 East towards 

Oak Ridge, I see the sign, 19 miles t
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 24

1 

2 

3 other's Day, her birthdays and at 

4 Chr tma

5 many 

6 Still, 

7 keep 

8 mother 

9 

10 

11 We missed many years of love and companionship 

12 

13 were 

14 ORINS 

15 with 

16 s no 

17 

18 

19 

20 This has been a very lengthy 

21 process for all of us. We have tried to be 

22 patient and thank you for your patience and 

at the door and she would light up like a 

Christmas tree because I was home. We miss 

her at M

is ses. 

 I have driven by the old home

times and I no longer belong there. 

some part of me cannot accept that and I

wanting to go back. Our love with our 

was cut short by 20 or more years. Her sister 

and her mother lived to be up in their '90s. 

with our mother due to her cancer death. 

 Oak Ridge Hospital's employees

in the same work area as ORINS. 

conducted research with cancer patients

various radioactive materials. There wa

personal radiation monitoring, externally or 

internally, for the Oak Ridge Hospital 

employee. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 25

1 

2 

3 while 

4 ld be 

5 hs of 

6 l colleagues has been 

7 rec niz

8 prove 

9 

10 

11 been 

12 ones. 

13 ll be 

14 employees of the Oak Ridge 

15 Hospital. And thank you so much for listening 

16 s. 

17 

18 very much, Sara. 

19 

20 welcome. 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And now we can 

22 open the floor for questions. Dr. Roessler, 

understanding. We agree with the petition and 

are confident that our mother's cancer death 

was related to radiation exposure 

employed at Oak Ridge Hospital. She wou

proud to know that her death and the deat

other Oak Ridge Hospita

og ed by this petition. 

 Please take the action to ap

and add the Class to the SEC. Several Oak 

Ridge Hospital employees have left this life 

too soon, and their families have 

slighted a full life with their loved 

We are very grateful to see that this wi

resolved for

to our concern

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you 

 MS. EDMUNDSON-CUMMINGS: You're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 26

1 

2 

3 nother 

4 ation 

5 o the 

6 cally 

7 were 

8 in discussing the people 

9 going back and forth. 

10 

11 report 

12 NS and 

13 lity. 

14 s that 

15 s, and 

16 this is out of your report, janitors and so on 

17 

18 

19 zards. 

20 Apparently they were aware of the problems 

21 that would occur with people going back and 

22 forth. So, I am just trying to play devil's 

do you want to begin? 

 MEMBER ROESSLER: What we are 

looking at here is a building next to a

building and questioning whether contamin

and so on would go from one building t

other, and I think I looked at it criti

from that point of view. I mean, you 

persuasive to me

 But I am a little concerned that 

there are so many indications in your 

that they did have good practices in ORI

between the hospital and the nuclear faci

 Some of the things that I picked out wa

they had separate laundries. The maid

were trained not to go into controlled areas. 

 Marshall Brucer had this book, and 

I haven't read it, on radioisotope ha
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 27

1 

2 

3 e you 

4 this 

5 did 

6 more 

7 ws or 

8 o are 

9 

10 

11 y had. I am just trying to play 

12 devil's advocate here and bring up a few 

13 

14 : My understanding 

15 is the two buildings were actually connected 

16 by me 

17 

18 

19 

20 DR. HUGHES: That is correct. 

21 There were actually -- ORINS started in the 

22 wing of the hospital and they just added 

advocate here. I just really am not totally 

convinced that enough looking has been done to 

find some more records. And I did notic

interviewed some people. And you know,

is in the '50s. I am not sure who you

interview but I guess I would feel

comfortable either reading those intervie

maybe even talking to some people wh

still alive, I would assume, who were there at 

the time to ask them more about the controls 

that the

questions. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER

so kind of a walkway or -- 

 DR. HUGHES: That is correct. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It showed up in 

the picture as well. Is that correct? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 28

1 

2 connected. 

3 that 

4 eaving 

5 sense, 

6 connecting corridor, as 

7 t e.

8 rrect. 

9 

10 separate contracts with the AEC. They were 

11 

12 . We 

13 they 

14 ntract 

15 what 

16 cause, 

17 

18 

19 rmer 

20 physician of this facility. And he said, oh, 

21 yes, I would go over there and do an 

22 amputation or do this and he was not 

another wing to the end. So yes, it was 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So from 

point of view, it wasn't a matter of l

one building and going to another, in a 

except going through a

i wer Is that correct? 

 DR. HUGHES: That is co

There were two separate entities; they had two 

treated as two separate facilities. 

 And initially we looked at it

were like yes, we don't really see how 

are connected but we found all the co

information. And that was actually

caused us to move in this direction, be

well, it pretty specifically states they could 

draw on any employee, any personnel need that 

they would have. And I did interview a fo
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 29

1 

2 

3 iation 

4 much 

5 these personnel that 

6 wou co

7 ppose 

8 w, we 

9 

10 

11 were 

12 h Oak 

13 ormal 

14 octors 

15 not employed by the hospital. They have 

16 privileges there but they are paid by somebody 

17 

18 

19 if is 

20 this an issue, but it seemed to me that there 

21 is a possibility that many doctors, such as 

22 the one you described, who went in there to 

monitored. 

 So it was handled that it -- 

indeed, ORINS was aware of the rad

exposure potential but I am not sure how

it was enforced with 

ld me in and help out. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Now I su

from kind of a practical point of vie

would expect that the nurses and the doctors 

would be, perhaps, heavily exposed and maybe 

some of the orderlies and others who 

support staff. I don't know how muc

Ridge Hospital operated like a n

hospital, but in many hospitals, the d

are 

else. 

 I am wondering in this case, and I 

don't know if Labor looks at this or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 30

1 

2 

3 ic of 

4 . In 

5 aking 

6 e 250 

7 for those folks if they are there partial 

8 days. 

9 

10 

11 arious 

12 l-Mart 

13 that 

14 way. Many of them, at least 

15 nowadays are in the hospital quite a bit. How 

16 

17 

18 

19 now this if you have 

20 paid bills. You often don't pay the hospital 

21 for services you get in the hospital. You pay 

22 a clinic or some other group. 

either do rounds or attend patients may not 

actually be employees of the hospital. Maybe 

they are, you know, a physicians' clin

some sort. But they are there every day

fact, it occurred to me if they are m

rounds every day, how do you count th

days

 But I think it is a valid question 

for a hospital. Also hospitals have, 

typically, have many volunteers who do v

things. They are sort of like Wa

greeters in some cases, and I don't mean

in a derogatory

do we handle them? 

 And also, not only the regular 

physicians, but often radiology groups are 

independent. And you k
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 31

1 

2 

3 Labor 

4 be a 

5 they 

6 came in to tend 

7 to tie

8 So, you get the drift of what I am 

9 asking. 

10 

11 have 

12 t was 

13 rt to 

14 ingle 

15 the 

16 loyed 

17 

18 

19 

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, and maybe 

21 Sara or some of the petitioners or others 

22 would know whether or not doctors were 

So, I am wondering if that applies 

at all or were these all employed by the 

hospital, and if they weren't, how does 

handle that? Because there wouldn't 

record of them being employed there if

were a physicians' group that

pa nts in one way or another. 

 DR. HUGHES: Yes. I can't really 

answer that question but we know we

available -- the Oak Ridge Hospital, as i

an AEC facility, published an annual repo

the AEC and it listed staff in every s

report. So it lists the names of all

doctors that worked there that were emp

there now. Was there any other doctor 

possibly that was in that situation that you 

pointed out? I don't know at this time. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 32

1 

2 

3 have hospital privileges for whatever reason. 

4 ? 

5 just 

6 . It 

7 Ds or 

8 -time 

9 

10 

11 that is everybody involved but it seems to be 

12 

13 nk my 

14 staff 

15 ans have privileges in the hospital, 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I don't 

21 know the answer. I know in many hospitals, 

22 certainly today, the physicians are typically 

employed privately in Oak Ridge. Because it 

would not be unusual for a private doctor to 

And, Josie, you have a comment

 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I was

looking on the report on page 20 of 46

does list type of employees. Staff M

physicians are listed, along with part

staff technicians, nurses' aides, anyway down 

to the maintenance personnel. I don't know if 

a pretty good list. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I thi

question would remain, would only 

physici

and in a typical hospital, that would not be 

the case. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Would they be 

employees in that case? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 33

1 

2 

3 nt of view. 

4 An so 

5 the 

6 r of 

7 etter 

8 just talking about how I get 

9 billed and so on. 

10 

11 rn in 

12 nk I 

13 ct of interest. But it 

14 maybe my wife would 

15 qua fy 

16 

17 

18 

19 ous business. But we are not 

20 sure. I am not sure how we identify the 

21 workers in some of the hospital situations. 

22 That is my point. 

not employed by the hospital. They may have 

an agreement to have privileges there but they 

are independent from a payment poi

d if you looked at the hospital -- 

 What you have is you have

regular -- there is a certain numbe

regular staff. Dr. Lockey knows this b

than I. I am

 You know, I have a funny view. I 

should tell you my oldest daughter was bo

the Oak Ridge Hospital and I don't thi

will have a confli

occurred to me that 

li as a laborer -- 

 (Laughter.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- although she 

wasn't there 250 days. I shouldn't say that. 

 This is seri
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 34

1 

2 

3 n the 

4 t is 

5 ablish 

6 Any 

7 such 

8 like 

9 

10 

11 is a 

12 answer here but certainly 

13 the Department of Labor could maybe speak up 

14 

15 rstand 

16 n the 

17 

18 I am really raising the question as to whether 

19 all the folks in the wording. 

20 MR. KOTSCH: As Jim mentioned, -- 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: This is Jeff 

22 Kotsch from Labor. 

DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. It 

seems to me we have a number of claimants the 

Department of Labor has vetted and are i

program for dose reconstructions. And i

really under their purview to est

whether those people are valid claimants.

physician who was a contractor to DOE or

could -- has the opportunity to file,

anyone else would be, to be a member of this 

class or to be a valid claimant. 

 So, I am not sure that 

question that we can

as to how they would -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I unde

it is really a Labor issue. Withi

wording of the Class that we would recommend, 

we have covered
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 35

1 

2 

3 -case 

4 irect 

5 you 

6 the 

7 y we were 

8 int pre

9 

10 

11 class 

12 e language 

13 

14 think you included all workers -- 

15 all 

16 

17 

18 

19 e are 

20 arguing whether people were in certain 

21 buildings or actually in, you know, had the 

22 potential for exposure. And here we are just, 

MR. KOTSCH: I'm sorry. Jeff 

Kotsch with the Department of Labor. Each of 

these would be looked at on a case-by

basis but certainly, if they were d

employees or contractors, they would be,

know, they should be covered under 

definition, at least the wa

er ting it. It is a DOE facility. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I just wanted 

to follow up on the -- I mean, it is our 

responsibility in a sense in that 

definition we have to think about th

of who is included in the Class. And in this 

case, I 

MEMBER LOCKEY: It says 

employees. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, all 

employees. And that sort of stuck out to me 

because so often in our arguments w
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 36

1 

2 

3 inguish whether there were 

4 cla es 

5 g the 

6 d the 

7 the 

8 you have included all 

9 employees in this class. 

10 

11 I am 

12 were 

13 pital 

14 areas 

15 ou are 

16 ecords 

17 

18 

19 went far enough to try to determine 

20 whether there was some way to distinguish who 

21 was likely, you know, higher exposure 

22 potential. 

I am not sure we went far enough with the 

research or NIOSH went far enough with the 

research to dist

ss of employees. 

 You know Paul is maybe askin

broader question of does it go beyon

hospital walls. But I am saying within

hospital, should 

 And this is just kind of looking at 

other SECs that we have reviewed and 

thinking of consistency here. You know,

there administrative people in the hos

that had any potential to be in those 

where, you know, and I know maybe y

going to say, well we don't have the r

to show who was who. But, I mean, I see jobtitle stuff, so I don't know. I just wonder 

if you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 37

1 

2 

3 w, in 

4 ords. 

5 other 

6 large 

7 lp us 

8 have 

9 

10 

11 have 

12 rd to 

13 And in 

14 en a 

15 all16 r of 

17 

18 it is usually almost always the case that it 

19 mation 

20 at all. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: And I am not sure 

22 -- maybe I should ask this question. I mean, 

DR. NETON: Yes, I understand what 

you are saying and you sort of guessed where I 

was going to come from. But, you kno

this situation, we have no monitoring rec

 So in the situations you described or 

SEC determinations where we have a 

amount of monitoring data that could he

determine, you know, where people may

worked based on their monitoring status, we in 

some cases can triage those folks. 

 But in a situation where you

no monitoring data at all, it is very ha

place anyone in a location at all. 

that situation, I think there has be

precedent set that we do default to this

employees. There have been a numbe

classes established with that criterion, and 

is because we have no monitoring infor
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 38

1 

2 

3 use I 

4 ssion 

5 k and 

6 that 

7 could have 

8 had all students, all faculty, you know. 

9 

10 

11 We 

12 ding. 

13 you are 

14 or t. tion 

15 d all employees at MIT. 

16 LaVon 

17 

18 

19 gh. 

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, the Board 

22 brought up the same concern. 

how many employees were there in this time 

period in the Oak Ridge Hospital? What is the 

number we are talking about? Beca

remember this came up with MIT, our discu

about MIT. And I think you came bac

modified the approach that, I may have

wrong, but you know, with MIT, we

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, actually MIT 

is a little different. MIT -- we actually 

never completed the evaluation on MIT.

actually shifted to the Hood Buil

Originally, we had defined all -- 

c rec We actually pulled that evalua

back. We had define

 I'm sorry. This is 

Rutherford, by the way. 

MEMBER GRIFFON: You are reexamining that one, thou
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 39

1 

2 

3 that 

4 t was 

5 area. 

6 f that area and 

7 we d n

8 was a 

9 

10 

11 mation to 

12 reduce that class as well. So, I think 

13 een set in this situation. 

14 it is 

15 

16 is -

17 

18 

19 I had 

20 totally separated them. But after looking at 

21 it and after discussions with Dr. Hughes and 

22 such, you did have employees moving back and 

MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. But a 

couple of examples, Westinghouse Atomic Power 

Development, there was an indication 

there was a very small activity tha

conducted in what was probably a smaller 

 However, we had no evidence o

ha o information to change it. 

 Standard Oil. Standard Oil 

pilot project. We had indications it was 

pilot activity, probably not large-scale. But 

we just didn't have enough infor

precedence has b

MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, maybe

mixed a little bit. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, and here

- yes. And the difficulty, Oak Ridge 

Hospital, or if you remember, I did Oak Ridge 

Institute of Nuclear Studies originally, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 40

1 

2 

3 t was 

4 u had 

5 otopes 

6 e. So 

7 you had contamination potential there as well. 

8 ls -- 

9 

10 cafeteria. And we know we have documentation 

11 

12 bably 

13 Ridge 

14 tion 

15 cility 

16 got 

17 

18 

19 

20 So, it made it very difficult. 

21 Believe me, we struggled with the Class 

22 definition on this one. 

forth. 

 Plus, you have to remember, you had 

the morgue. It was a common morgue tha

used between both facilities. And yo

patients who were injected with radiois

who died that were taken to that morgu

 You had the eating utensi

don't forget that -- that were used. The same 

of contaminated eating utensils. 

 So, I just think it was pro

not a routine monitoring program at Oak 

Hospital as well for surface contamina

that could have been spread from one fa

to the other. You have already

indications that that contamination had spread 

through the cafeteria and possibly through the 

morgue as well. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 41

1 

2 

3 ep te

4 ve Bob 

5 Presley and Phil Schofield, then John Poston. 

6 talk? 

7 

8 que ion

9 MEMBER PRESLEY: The question was, 

10 

11 but 

12 not. I don't know. Bob is asking 

13 whether he is conflicted on Oak Ridge 

14 

15 e this is considered a 

16 separate facility. Is it not? Robert, are 

17 you conflicted on ORINS? 

18 

19 u are 

20 okay. 

21 MEMBER PRESLEY: All right. Paul 

22 brought the question up about the doctors and 

MEMBER GRIFFON: The laundry, too. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, they had 

s ara laundries. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We ha

MEMBER PRESLEY: Emily, can I 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: What was that 

st , Bob? 

 

can I talk? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Maybe you can

you may

Hospital. 

 I believ

MEMBER PRESLEY: No. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. Then yo
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 42

1 

2 

3 f the 

4 Most 

5 e was 

6 a lot 

7 rers that were hired in at Oak Ridge 

8 Hos tal

9 

10 

11 litary 

12 work 

13 octors 

14 Identifying information 

15 redacted], I think both were military doctors 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes, and the thing 

21 was, did you all, I am not causing any 

22 problems but, did you look at records for 

the nurses. In the early days at Oak Ridge 

Hospital, your doctors were military 

personnel. We have got pictures o

doctors with their military uniforms on. 

of the nurses were brought in, and ther

some nurses hired outside but there was 

of labo

pi . 

 But the majority of the doctors and 

a lot of the nurses in the early days, 

probably up to the gate opening, were mi

personnel that were brought in there to 

onsite. I know a lot of the military d

worked on me. [

that stayed in Oak Ridge. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And I suppose the 

same question would arise. Would they qualify 

under this definition? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 43

1 

2 

3 The 

4 did not have their own monitoring 

5 fac iti

6 n the 

7 done the early monitoring of 

8 tho fi

9 

10 

11 g the 

12 data. 

13 there. So, we found records that 

14 they were supposed to be sent to the -- oh, I 

15 

16 sults 

17 

18 to look there and we were unable to locate 

19 

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: LaVon Rutherford. 

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, we actually 

22 did a pretty detailed search when we did Oak 

monitoring at Y-12 and ORNL? Because if I 

remember correctly, Y-12 did some of the early 

film badges and things like that. 

hospital 

il es. 

 So Y-12 or ORNL might have bee

ones that had 

se lm badges. 

 DR. HUGHES: Yes, that is correct. 

 We actually -- got memos that they did do 

this. You know, the memos institutin

program but we never actually found the 

 We did look 

don't remember. 

 We have memos that the bad re

should be sent there and there. And we tried 

them. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 44

1 

2 

3 te of 

4 e of 

5 pital 

6 RINS. 

7 y, we 

8 e they 

9 

10 

11 they might 

12 actually have been doing the monitoring as 

13 wel H

14 

15 FIELD: You know, the 

16 Atomic Energy Commission controlled that 

17 hospital. Is that correct? 

18 

19 they 

20 really -- they would have had to say who 

21 worked there and who did not work there, given 

22 the security restrictions in the early days. 

Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies. What we 

found was -- we found a little bit of film 

badge data for the Oak Ridge Institu

Nuclear Studies personnel. However, non

those were for the Oak Ridge Hos

personnel. This was back when we did O

We actually checked at Y-12. And reall

checked at Oak Ridge National Lab becaus

were producing a lot of the isotopes that were 

being done at the time between Y-12 and Oak 

Ridge National Lab. So we figured

l. owever, we didn't find anything. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, Philip.

 MEMBER SCHO

 DR. HUGHES: That is correct. 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Okay, then 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 45

1 

2 

3 ively 

4 ergy Commission employee or Oak 

5 Rid em

6 IEMER: That is helpful. 

7 Th y

8 is a 

9 

10 

11 to make a decision on this issue because I 

12 ere. 

13 n in 

14 h was 

15 vity. 

16 erapy 

17 

18 is sort of irrelevant to me in terms of 

19 that 

20 were in place even in the 1950s. 

21 So you know, I just haven't heard 

22 enough here to give me a clear idea of what is 

So you would have to assume anybody that 

worked in there was only there with their 

permission, which means they are effect

an Atomic En

ge ployee. 

 CHAIRMAN Z

 ank ou. John Poston. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Cancer 

terrible thing and I can testify to that. But 

I just, at this point, find it very difficult 

don't think there is enough information h

 At this point, you know, eve

the 1950s, nuclear medicine and so fort

actually becoming a fairly mature acti

And the fact that there were cancer th

sources, intense sources for cancer treatment 

potential exposures because of the rules
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 46

1 

2 in favor of voting in favor of this petition. 

3 

4 p to 

5 rough 

6 though 

7 Ridge 

8 ional 

9 

10 

11 goes 

12 professional corporation, which is 

13 their employer, which then comes back to them 

14 

15 r has 

16 to be 

17 

18 

19 ologists. I 

20 suspect a lot of these physicians had their 

21 own corporation that contracted directly to 

22 provide services to Oak Ridge Hospital. 

going on. And at this point, I would not be 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Lockey. 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: In relationshi

physicians, they function usually th

professional corporations, and even 

they may be a full-time employee of Oak 

Hospital, most likely it is their profess

organization that contracts with Oak Ridge 

Hospital to provide their service. So they 

may be there 60 hours a week but payment

to the 

personally. 

 So that issue, I think, eithe

to be addressed in the language or has 

further explored. That is the way -- you 

know, there are anesthesiologists here. There 

are surgeons here. There is radi
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 47

1 

2 

3 rhaps 

4 was 

5 0s, I 

6 t was the case in the 

7 mid e '

8 MEMBER POSTON: When did the gate 

9 open? 

10 

11 , March the 16th, I believe -- 19th and at 

12 that point, then, anybody could come in and 

13 

14 he gate 

15 opened in '49, that probably, that is when 

16 ere. 

17 

18 certainly a lot of private physicians in Oak 

19 

20 Dr. Lockey. 

21 MEMBER LOCKEY: I noticed in the 

22 review, that a person interviewed was a 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Certainly, as 

Robert Presley described, perhaps the early 

ones were military. I am not -- we pe

don't know how long that lasted. It

certainly in the '40s and into the '5

suppose. I doubt if i

dl 50s, would you say? 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: The gate opened in 

1949

work. 

 So I would say that after t

things opened up for everybody to live th

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, there were 

Ridge in the '50s. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 48

1 

2 

3 able 

4 the 

5 Ridge 

6 to -- 

7 probably be able to answer all 

8 of ose

9 

10 

11 y and 

12 you 

13 they 

14 hospital. And I think 

15 this physician that I interviewed actually was 

16 

17 

18 

19 ue on rent 

20 question, whether or not, like who their 

21 actual employer was, actually. 

22 MEMBER LOCKEY: Perhaps this 

physician. 

DR. HUGHES: That is correct. 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: And were you

to explore with him or her as to how

physicians were functioning at Oak 

Hospital at that time, in relationship 

he or she would 

th questions. 

 DR. HUGHES: Yes, possibly. I did 

not specifically ask the question whether or 

not they were employed by a third entit

had this employment relationship that

described. I was under the impression

were employed by the

employed by the hospital. 

 I was more concerned with staff 

going to the ORINS hospital so I asked those 

q sti s. I did not ask the diffe
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 49

1 

2 

3 t we cover those 

4 peo e t

5 on. 

6 ion is 

7 vered 

8 t the 

9 

10 references looked like -- that there was still 

11 License until '63. 

12 u are 

13 

14 f the 

15 Ridge 

16 covered past 1959. They did 

17 continue an AEC license because they were 

18 

19 elieve 

20 and they had a separate facility then, in the 

21 early '60s and probably had a regular nuclear 

22 medicine type or sources as part of a regular 

physician could be a source to gather 

additional information so at least we can get 

the language correct tha

pl hat need to be covered. 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Michael Gibs

 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes, my quest

a little different. It is more on the co

time period that NIOSH is proposing tha

period ends in '59. I notice some of the 

an AEC Radioactive Material

So, could you tell us why yo

proposing to cut it off in '59? 

 DR. HUGHES: It is the end o

covered period. Under EEOICPA, the Oak 

Hospital is not 

using radioisotopes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I b
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 50

1 

2 

3 se, I 

4 e relationship with ORINS 

5 end as

6 espect 

7 ital, 

8 t was 

9 

10 

11 rther 

12 

13 One 

14 to or 

15 ld be 

16 third 

17 

18 

19 hink if that were the case -- this 

20 is an 83.13 petition, which I believe goes to 

21 Dr. Melius' work group for further 

22 consideration. 

hospital operation. But the period identified 

through the EEOICPA regs ends in '59. So that 

is -- we are locked into that in a sen

believe. But th

ed well. Right? 

 DR. HUGHES: It ended with r

to it being a wing of the Oak Ridge Hosp

since the old hospital was, most of i

torn down and a new hospital was built. So 

there were separate facilities after that. 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, any fu

questions? 

 We have a couple of options.

would be to have a motion to agree 

recommend this SEC. Another option wou

to recommend that it not be granted. A 

option would be to defer action by asking that 

a work group examine the issues that have been 

raised. I t
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 51

1 

2 

3 

4 king, 

5 ones that 

6 are on the table were you concerned about? 

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You are asking 

8 Joh Pos

9 

10 

11 posed, 

12 50 to 

13 r all 

14 And 

15 even 

16 . I 

17 

18 

19 no one 

20 is present, except the person receiving the 

21 treatment, as you probably know. So, those 

22 are not a source of exposure of the personnel. 

So, any of those actions would be 

possible actions. 

Dr. Lockey? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: John, I was as

what additional issues besides the 

 

n ton? 

MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes, John Poston. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Well, because there 

is no evidence that they have been ex

that works both ways, you know? And 19

1959, there were regulations in place fo

exposures, including those in hospitals.

typically in a nuclear medicine facility,

back then, the exposures are quite low

mean, you are talking a few millirads, not 

huge doses. The cancer therapy systems that 

were in use are in shielded rooms and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 52

1 And 

2 

3 level 

4 icate 

5 risk. But I just 

6 

7 did 

8 the 

9 

10 

11 ity and the kinds of 

12 dosimeters that we were required to wear and 

13 

14 lear 

15 s in 

16 ation 

17 

18 

19 things amiss in terms of over-exposures or 

20 anything that would lead to the conclusion 

21 that we should vote in favor of this SEC. 

22 I don't know. Maybe we should 

the incidents of contamination 

and stuff like that, they shouldn't have 

happened but those are typically low 

kinds of exposures that to me would ind

that there is not a huge 

don't know. I just don't know. 

 The fact that somebody 

radiation measurements, somebody did

dosimetry, I was there. Well, I wasn't there 

in '59, but I was working in '59 and I know 

what we did in my facil

all of those kinds of things. 

 Oak Ridge Institute for Nuc

Studies was quite well run. The folk

there were quite versed in radi

protection procedures and so forth. But I 

don't have any evidence that there were any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 53

1 

2 

3 me to vote in favor of this, at this 

4 point. 

5 

6 feel 

7 don't 

8 eally 

9 

10 

11 decision at this point and form a work group 

12 

13 much 

14 s we 

15 nswered fairly quickly 

16 and we could move on with it fairly quickly. 

17 

18 

19 

20 This is a motion to ask a work 

21 group to examine the issues that have been 

22 raised and to make a recommendation -- 

table this or ask NIOSH to look further. But 

I just don't see the evidence here that would 

cause

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Roessler.

 MEMBER ROESSLER: I don't

comfortable in voting against this and I 

feel comfortable in voting for it. I r

think we should defer it. And because of 

that, I am going to move that we defer a 

to look at it. 

 I don't think it would take

time. I think some of the question

brought up could be a

So that is a formal motion. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You have heard 

the motion. Is there a second? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 54

1 

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- and seconded 

3 by nda

4 

5 ntion 

6 k group. Was 

7 Gen ugg

8 ave a 

9 

10 for 83.13 petitions. Oh, no. He has got 

11 I'm sorry. 

12 I was 

13 

14 MAN ZIEMER: Yes. So, yes, I 

15 guess your motion would be to ask that a work 

16 ok at this. 

17 

18 

19 quick 

20 thing. This is similar to, probably, some of 

21 the medical contracts and stuff they had at 

22 Hanford and Los Alamos. Have you looked to 

MEMBER MUNN: Second. 

 

Wa Munn. 

Yes, Josie Beach? 

 MEMBER BEACH: You did me

sending it over to Melius' wor

 s esting a new work group or -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, we h

work group that is specifically responsible 

83.14s. 

MEMBER BEACH: That is what 

wondering. 

 CHAIR

group lo

Other discussion on the motion? 

Yes, Phil? 

 MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Just one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 55

1 

2 

3 until 

4 would 

5 same 

6 have 

7 tely contractors of the 

8 Ato c E

9 

10 

11 f those questions could be 

12 answered by looking at the Hanford and Los 

13 

14 e the 

15 ty to 

16 And 

17 

18 

19 e a 

20 motion on the floor to defer action until a 

21 work group has had a chance to consider these 

22 issues further, and perhaps with the 

see how those were handled? Because AEC 

actually owned Los Alamos Medical Center and 

controlled all the personnel there up 

1964. And so that would actually, they 

fall under -- I mean, I would assume the

thing there that all these people would

to have been ultima

mi nergy Commission. 

 And how that was handled given that 

AEC controlled all of these contracts, I think 

maybe some o

Alamos contracts. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Of cours

ultimate problem here is the inabili

reconstruct dose due to lack of records. 

if that can't be done, then we have kind of a 

default position. But there are some 

questions that have been raised. We hav
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 56

1 

2 

3 he ti

4 Further discussion pro or con? 

5 Wan Mu

6 is 

7 d be 

8 o put 

9 

10 

11 ng of 

12 appear 

13 The 

14 that, 

15 body 

16 not a 

17 

18 undertaken but more, a very precise level of 

19 of 

20 information that we are seeking. 

21 I would request that, if we do 

22 constitute a work group, we are very clear 

assistance of our contractor and working with 

NIOSH, depending on how it goes, but that is 

t mo on before us. 

 

da nn. 

 MEMBER MUNN: My discussion

neither pro nor con but it woul

beneficial, if we are in fact going t

together a work group, for the people sitting 

at this table right here to be very clear 

today about exactly what they are aski

the Work Group, because there does not 

to be an extensive number of issues here.

issues should be very clearly defined so

unlike many work groups, there is not a

of additional information to be gleaned, 

number of major activities that have to be 

information, a very precise type
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 57

1 

2 when. 

3 u for 

4 what 

5 work 

6 ership 

7 ific charge relating to the 

8 

9 Dr. 

10 

11 n was 

12 , the 

13 to go back and make sure there is 

14 no data available. Is that correct? Do a 

15 

16 n be 

17 

18 possibly consider reconstructing exposures. 

19 other 

20 search; make sure there is no data. 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think we 

22 will spend some time during our work session 

about what we expect their product to be and 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank yo

that comment. And if the motion passes,

the Chair proposes is that, during our

session, we identify the Work Group memb

and give it a spec

items to be addressed. 

Lockey? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: From what I heard 

that John was talking about, John Posto

talking about, I guess you are requesting

request is 

double search. 

 And by default, if no data ca

found, then at that point, you can't even 

So, that is your main question. Do an
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 58

1 

2 

3 er petitioners as we go 

4 for rd 

5 Mark, we will get another comment 

6 fro you

7 an I 

8 the 

9 

10 

11 table. 

12 retty 

13 g the 

14 m and 

15 better 

16 that. 

17 

18 

19 rybody 

20 equally likely to be, you know, equally likely 

21 to have a high exposure potential or, you 

22 know, in my mind I am thinking that we might 

defining what the complete nature of the 

issues are because I want to keep us on 

schedule for oth

wa this morning. 

 

m . 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I me

guess this is a comment in support of

motion, I suppose. I think that I don't 

disagree with Wanda. I think that there are 

probably just a couple of issues on the 

 I think the problem is that they are p

broad. I mean, in my mind, it is definin

worker population question and maybe Ji

NIOSH is accurate that it can't be 

defined but I think we want to look into 

 But also look into this; can we characterize 

the exposure potential better? And that is 

going back to the records. Was eve
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 59

1 

2 had some more information. 

3 many 

4 road. 

5 a's position but I just 

6 

7 you. 

8 omments? Are you ready to vote on 

9 the motion? 

10 I guess let's go ahead and take a 

11 roll call vote and just go around the table. 

12 Poston? 

13 s. 

14 essler? 

15 : Yes. 

16 ibson? 

17 

18 

19 

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Lockey? 

21 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes. 

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Ziemer, yes. 

be able to redefine the Class that way, if we 

 So, it might not be that 

issues but I think they are kind of b

So, I understand Wand

wanted to make that point. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank 

Further c

MEMBER POSTON: Ye

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Ro

MEMBER ROESSLER

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: G

MEMBER GIBSON: No. 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Munn? 

MEMBER MUNN: Aye. Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 60

1 

2 

3 : Yes 

4 s 

5 

6 ayes 

7 ng our 

8 ip -

9 

10 

11 , and 

12 . I don't think 

13 we want to drag this one out. We need to come 

14 

15 view, 

16 riding 

17 

18 years on something this size, that is a small 

19 ng to 

20 closure as rapidly as we can. 

21 MEMBER BEACH: Paul just reminded 

22 me to get Dr. Melius' vote. Is that required? 

MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes 

MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes 

MEMBER CLAWSON

MEMBER BEACH: Ye

MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, the

have it. The motion carries. And duri

work group, we will establish the membersh

- or during our work session, we will 

establish the Work Group membership and the 

charge or the issues to be dealt with

hopefully, also a time table

to closure as rapidly as possible. 

 And from a practical point of 

although this is not necessarily an over

consideration, but we don't want to spend two 

population group that we need to bri
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 61

1 

2 

3 not an action that goes to the 

4 Sec tar

5 Dr. 

6 the 

7 ation group itself. 

8 Tha is,

9 

10 for your presentation and participation in 

11 thi one

12 

13 will 

14 EC petition, and 

15 ll make the presentation on 

16 the val

17 

18 

19 

20 Okay, again, I am LaVon Rutherford. 

21 I am the Special Exposure Cohort Health 

22 Physics Team Leader for NIOSH, and I am going 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Actually, we are 

not required to get Dr. Melius' vote on this, 

since it is

re y, no. 

 I do know from talking with

Melius that he also had concerns about

description of the popul

t the Class definition. 

 Okay, and thank you, Dr. Hughes, 

s . 

 DR. HUGHES: Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Next, we

address the Baker-Perkins S

LaVon Rutherford wi

 E uation Report on that one. 

 LaVon? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: All right. Give 

me one moment here. Oh, there it is. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 62

1 

2 

3 d on 

4 r had 

5 worked 

6 , Michigan 

7 

8 for 

9 

10 was no external monitoring records exist for 

11 

12 cility 

13 1956 

14 ever, 

15 that 

16 14th 

17 

18 

19 

20 in Saginaw, Michigan from May 14, 1956 through 

21 May 18th of 1956. 

22 A little background on Bakerto talk about the Baker-Perkins Company SEC 

Petition evaluation. 

 This petition was receive

September 9th of 2008. The petitione

proposed a class of all employees who 

at Baker-Perkins facility in Saginaw

from May 14, 1956 through July 12 of 1968. 

 We qualified the petition

evaluation on March 13th of 2009. That basis 

the Class. 

 The Department of Energy fa

database actually indicates that May of

is the covered period for this site. How

documentation available to us indicates

the activity actually occurred from May

of 1956 through May 18th of 1956. Therefore, 

the Class that we qualified and evaluated was 

all AWE employees who worked at Baker-Perkins 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 63

1 

2 

3 or the 

4 aker5 d of 

6 ustry 

7 other 

8 ixers 

9 

10 

11 kins 

12 ducts 

13 e in 

14 as a 

15 And 

16 ition 

17 

18 

19 eport 

20 on the back table. I have also emailed the 

21 Board and I have also contacted the petitioner 

22 and let the petitioner know that we are 

Perkins. Baker-Perkins is located in Saginaw, 

Michigan. It was originally a company that 

developed industrial mixing machines f

food industry. However, in 1919, B

Perkins, and in later years, they kin

expanded their role from the food ind

into the chemical industry and into 

applications where they were developing m

and equipment that could be used throughout 

industry. 

 In the 1950s, Baker-Per

Chemical Machine business, offered pro

including heavy duty mixers for us

industrial applications. One of those w

Ko-Kneader. It is a heavy duty mixer. 

for those of you that have the Pet

Evaluation Report, the actual figure in the 

Petition Evaluation Report is incorrect. I 

have put the correct figure next to the r
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 64

1 

2 

3 or mor

4 tested 

5 which 

6 Ohio, 

7 tests 

8 16th 

9 

10 equipment was decontaminated and cleaned from 

11 . 

12 they 

13 g at 

14 a-water 

15 get the right 

16 consistency that they could use that Ko17 

18 

19 . We 

20 looked at existing Site Profiles, Technical 

21 Information Bulletins. We interviewed former 

22 employees. Existing claimant files, we looked 

revising the report to include the correct 

picture and that report should be issued today 

to row. 

 In 1956, the Ko-Kneader was 

for its use in mixing uranium compounds, 

was orange oxide for National Lead of 

which is the Fernald project. These 

were performed from May 14th through May

at the Baker-Perkins company and then the 

May 15th through May 18th at the facility

 Basically, what they did was

brought material in. They were lookin

mixing the orange oxide with an ammoni

mixture to see if it could

Kneader in production applications. 

 Again, we looked at a number of 

sources for information on Baker-Perkins
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 65

1 

2 

3 the ict

4 e, we 

5 rkins 

6 tal 

7 gacy 

8 ent, NNSA, the NRC, a number of 

9 sources. 

10 

11 s on 

12 et search, CEDR database in 

13 various DOE locations and the National 

14 

15 site 

16 dose 

17 

18 

19 completed dose reconstruction on all eight. 

20 None of the claims included internal dosimetry 

21 and none of them included external dosimetry. 

22 A little more on the test, and I 

at documentation provided by the petitioner, 

which was some good documentation, including 

 p ure of the Ko-Kneader itself. 

 NIOSH Site Research Databas

did data captures, looked at the Baker-Pe

Group, Michigan Department of Environmen

Quality, DOE Germantown, DOE Le

Managem

 We also went to Washington State 

University. We do DOE OpenNet searche

OSTI, intern

Academies Press. 

 We had eight claims for this

for Baker-Perkins. We have completed 

reconstructions. All eight of those claims 

meet the Class definition and we have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 66

1 

2 

3 t Ko4 each 

5 , use 

6 g this 

7 water8 Ko9 

10 

11 hrough 

12 iption 

13 , the 

14 ation 

15 n why 

16 cess 

17 

18 

19 hat. 

20 And then -- I'm sorry. Also from 

21 May 15th to May 18th, they decon-ed and 

22 cleaned the K Ko-Kneader, as well as the omega 

think I gave some of this already. Again, the 

test was conducted on May 14th through May 

16th. There were actually two differen

Kneaders in the process. They tested

application to see if they could, again

this in a production operation by mixin

uranium trioxide or orange oxide with a 

ammonium solution. They tested the first

Kneader and then they tested the second one. 

They were following applications. 

 When you actually looked t

the operations itself, there is a descr

of the activity, of how it was performed

start-stop times, when it was done, oper

of each Ko-Kneader and the description o

they didn't use it, meaning, the pro

generated too much heat that they felt that 

they couldn't use it in a production scale. 

So again, that project report discusses t
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 67

1 

2 

3 -ing that, brushes, steam cleaning, and 

4 o 

5 sure. 

6 would 

7 range 

8 er, 

9 

10 

11 inhalation and ingestion from this work would 

12 

13 ; you 

14 range 

15 posure 

16 achine as 

17 well. The neutrons were determined not to be 

18 

19 oring 

20 data. We have no bioassay data for the Class 

21 period. However, we have 24 general area 

22 samples that were taken during the entire 

pump and routing pump that were used in the 

process. They used various techniques in 

decon

s on.

 Internal sources of expo

Again, the internal source of exposure 

have been associated with loading the o

oxide into the mixer, operating the mix

removal of the orange oxide and 

decontamination of equipment. Potential 

pose an internal radiation hazard. 

 External sources of exposure

had, initially, one to two drums of o

oxide. So, we have photon and beta ex

from that orange oxide and in the m

a significant source of external exposure. 

 Our data. Internal monit
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 68

1 

2 

3 Ko4 the 

5 t. And we have 14 breathing zone 

6 sam es.

7 were 

8 sures 

9 

10 

11 operations, as well as during decontamination 

12 

13 ocket 

14 adiation surveys. 

15 However, you would not necessarily expect 

16 

17 

18 

19 of 

20 individual members of the Class? If that 

21 answer is yes, we don't answer the second one. 

22 However, if it is no, is there a reasonable 

process of operations over the five days, 

including operating -- loading the feed hopper 

with the orange oxide, operating the

Kneader, as well as decontamination of

equipmen

pl 

 Those breathing zone samples

where you would expect the highest expo

to occur: hand scooping of the orange oxide 

into the feed hopper of the Ko-Kneader for 

of the equipment. 

 We have no film badge or p

dosimetry data and no area r

that for a five-day test activity. 

 Again, this is a two-prong test. 

You have seen this before. Is it feasible to 

estimate the level radiation dose
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 69

1 

2 

3 

4 lable 

5 n and 

6 dose 

7 ent accuracy for 

8 the val

9 

10 

11 s u ing 

12 

13 ndard 

14 hing 

15 ed to 

16 ever, 

17 

18 

19 kers' 

20 description, the work activity, the location. 

21 So there is places in that process that allow 

22 it to reduce that exposure, depending on if 

likelihood that such radiation dose may have 

endangered the health of members of the Class, 

is the second question. 

 We found that the avai

monitoring records, process descriptio

source-term data are adequate to complete

reconstruction with suffici

 e uated class of employees. 

 Our feasibility approach, we took 

the general area air sample data, developed a 

di trib tion, as well as taking the breath

zone data and developing a distribution. 

 Geometric mean and sta

deviation were established. The breat

zone data, geometric mean, can be us

bound the internal exposure. How

Appendix P of Battelle-6001, which is actually 

for Baker-Perkins, does use that exact data 

but it looks closer at what the wor
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 70

1 

2 you were a clerk at the facility. 

3 data 

4 ional 

5 ived 

6 uspension factors 

7 ef d 

8 n be 

9 

10 

11 vity. 

12 ttle 

13 es a 

14 anium 

15 ernal 

16 h are 

17 

18 

19 

20 TBD-6001 provides skin dose 

21 estimates that are used for Appendix B, and 

22 the bounding external dose, again, as I 

you were an operator operating equipment or if 

 So again, the breathing zone

bounds it. But Appendix P provides addit

applications. Ingestion intakes are der

from deposition and re-s

d ine in 6000 and 6001 of TBD. 

 The external exposures ca

bounded by assuming a continuous exposure for 

the five to the two barrels of orange oxide. 

Again, for the duration of the acti

However, again, Appendix P looks at a li

more in detail of -- it actually us

surrogate operation looking at ur

refining operations and using the ext

exposures from those activities, whic

production-scale activities which you would 

anticipate being higher level than these small 

tests. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 71

1 

2 assuming continuous exposure to the two drums. 

3 n was 

4 ernal 

5 s for 

6 18 of 

7 an be 

8 So 

9 

10 endangerment, we don't have to answer that. 

11 

12 LaVon. 

13 Let me ask first if any of the petitioners 

14 are on the line and wish to make a statement. 

15 

16 please -- 

17 

18 and would like to make some statements. 

19 please 

20 identify yourself and then proceed. 

21 MR. D. BRENNAN: My name is David 

22 Brennan. I am the son of Clara Brennan, who 

mentioned before, can also be determined by 

 Our feasibility determinatio

that we can do dose reconstruction, int

and external, and our recommendation i

the period of May 14, 1956 through May 

1956. We find that dose estimates c

reconstructed for compensation purposes. 

we say it is feasible, and health 

 Questions? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you,

MR. D. BRENNAN: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, 

MR. D. BRENNAN: I am on the line 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 72

1 

2 

3 ahead. 

4 ephen 

5 I am a son of an employee of 

6 Bak -Pe

7 e is Amy 

8 Murasky Brennan, daughter of Clara Brennan. 

9 

10 And do any of you have a statement to make 

11 

12 like 

13 a statement. I am David Brennan. 

14 lease 

15 

16 some 

17 

18 

19 the 

20 Evaluation Report summary SEC-00128 Baker21 Perkins. This is the document that Mr. 

22 Rutherford has just reviewed. The other is 

was an employee of the Baker-Perkins Company 

during this covered time period. And -- go 

 MR. S. BRENNAN: My name is St

Brennan and

er rkins. 

 MS. MURASKY: And my nam

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And thank you. 

then? 

MR. D. BRENNAN: Yes, I would

to make

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: David, p

proceed. 

 MR. D. BRENNAN: Yes, I have

documents in front of me and I don't know if 

you have these in front of you as well, but I 

will be referencing them. One is
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 73

1 

2 

3 nt we 

4 esting 

5 during the period 

6 of e 1

7 rt of 

8 the 

9 

10 

11 eriod 

12 d the 

13 there 

14 g and then there was some cleanup, 

15 and that ended the exposure levels of one to 

16 

17 

18 

19 ch we 

20 feel was probably ignored, because we did 

21 point out some serious issues that we believe 

22 would lead to an extended period of exposure, 

the analytical data sheet, which is where a 

lot of this information came from. This 

analytical data sheet is the only docume

have that reported on or discussed the t

and cleanup of this material

th 4th to the 18th in 1957. 

 What Mr. Rutherford did was so

give us a good overview. However,

conclusion of the Evaluation Report summary we 

feel is incorrect. The essential part of this 

report is they said that this whole p

took place in 1956 between the 14th an

18th. And during this period of time, 

was testin

two barrels. 

 However, as we look over these 

documents -- and we did this in our testimony 

that we gave on July 22nd of 2008, whi
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 74

1 

2 

3 on is 

4 a greater exposure for a longer 

5 

6 the 

7 d how 

8 nt to 

9 

10 

11 t was 

12 t they 

13 t the 

14 so is 

15 were 

16 d in 

17 

18 

19 observations from the tester, from the 

20 individual who was doing this, and some of 

21 these are rather disturbing. 

22 To begin with, in the very first 

as a result of the method of testing and most 

certainly the method of cleanup, which did not 

clean up the area. Indeed, our contenti

that led to 

period of time. 

 It essentially concerned 

loading of the orange oxide material an

it was cleaned up. And for this, I wa

look at the analytical data sheet. This is 

the only document or witness of what happened 

during this period of time and how i

conducted. And it sort of discusses wha

did and how they did it. It talks abou

sample numbers. It gives hours and it al

a flowmeter report where apparently they

measuring the air that was being generate

the area. They were measuring what was in the 

atmosphere. However, there were written 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 75

1 

2 

3 ng of 

4 they 

5 m the 

6 ater, 

7 which 

8 s the 

9 

10 

11 ing my testimony of July 22nd. 

12 But I will touch upon a few of these things 

13 

14 r was 

15 the 

16 is 

17 

18 

19 However, no matter how careful, the scooping 

20 produces a very fine, very visible dust which 

21 disperses in the air around the machine. 

22 Now, we have a problem with some of 

page of it, where it talks, the 1956 BakerPerkins Corporation, it says samples of water 

discharged to river during steam cleani

equipment. This indicates to me that

were steam cleaning the orange oxide fro

equipment. When they had the leftover w

they allowed it to go into the drains, 

allowed it to go into the river. This i

very first problem we have. As we go through 

this, there is a whole series of things which 

I detailed dur

right now. Okay? 

 In 69-05, they say the operato

very careful in scooping material from

drum to the hopper. And the material he

referring to here, we are assuming, is the 

orange oxide from one of the two drums. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 76

1 

2 

3 e not 

4 Mr. 

5 some 

6 els. 

7 rrels. 

8 ograms 

9 

10 

11 er-Perkins. And the 

12 biggest concern we have is we don't know how 

13 

14 the 

15 great 

16 o the 

17 

18 

19 ors, 

20 on the walls, and when the doors and windows 

21 were opened, as I will point out later, blown 

22 out into the environment around in the 

the accounting for the orange oxide dust. In 

all of the reports that we have, they 

reference one to two barrels. They ar

specific of how many barrels it is. 

Rutherford discussed two barrels but 

reports said between one and two barr

However, there is no weight of the ba

So we don't know how many pounds or kil

or however you want to measure it, whether in 

metric or whatever. So we don't know how much 

material was sent to Bak

much materials were returned. 

 And we believe that during

course of this testing and cleaning, a 

deal of this material was exposed int

atmosphere. This dust was allowed to blow 

around the facility and this dust remained in 

the facility, on the equipment, on the flo
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 77

1 

2 discharged into the river. Okay? 

3 In 

4 ation 

5 h the 

6 tainer 

7 ly visible dust when a 

8 box as 

9 

10 

11 els. So some of it was 

12 lost, it was this dumping into cardboard boxes 

13 

14 up on 

15 using 

16 ghout 

17 

18 

19 

20 69-10, some dusting as material 

21 falls in the drum on top of the dry material. 

22 A vacuum hose from the dispenser, apparently 

neighborhood, and also some what may have been 

 Let's move on in this thing.

69-06, the Ko-Kneader area during calibr

of Omega feeder, material fed throug

feeder and dropped in the cardboard con

from a sampler shoot, on

 w removed and emptied. 

 So basically, they are using this 

material, they are dumping it into cardboard 

boxes from the barr

that led to dust. Okay? 

 They had a waterline plugged 

69-08. There was a discharge ca

considerable dust. So once again, throu

this entire operation, dust, an orange oxide 

dust was blowing around the area which is in 

this facility. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 78

1 

2 

3 here 

4 acuum 

5 of a 

6 al is 

7 We 

8 vacuum 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 more 

14 And 

15 28th 

16 t of 

17 

18 

19 the material, dust flows, respirators 

20 were worn by some of them during part of it 

21 but they were not worn by employees during the 

22 rest of it. 

that is some kind of vacuum, was inserted into 

drum to reduce the amount of escaping dust, 

but once again, a vacuum cleaner works w

you suck something out into the v

cleaner, and then there is some sort 

filter, presumably, but then other materi

vented into the air in a forceful way.

didn't know what kind of filter this 

had. It may have cut down on some of the dust 

but, nevertheless, blew other parts of it 

around into the building, around the area. 

Okay? 

 So, and they talk about 

dusting. And it goes through this. 

although I went into detail on my July

(sic, 22nd) testimony, I just will sor

touch on it because I know we have limited 

time here. But once again, there is hand 

scooping 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 79

1 

2 

3 which 

4 ulled 

5 d and 

6 ut they 

7 

8 nder 

9 

10 

11 er to 

12 e not 

13 kind 

14 ut of 

15 et it on a piece of paper 

16 on the floor, then they proceed to chip and 

17 

18 

19 umped 

20 on the floor or into a bag or into a cardboard 

21 box but he did think it was important enough 

22 for him to say some dumping was done. Okay? 

And I want to go right to the very 

back here because they talked about, in 69-19, 

talking about the cleanup and the way in 

they went about cleaning it up. They p

this big machine apart and they groun

chipped loose material on this thing b

also put it on a piece of paper on the floor. 

 So, you know, I would wo

whether this was an appropriate cleanup 

operation, where you have orange oxide dust 

encrusted onto a machine and so, in ord

clean it up, you take employees who ar

covered with respirators or gloves or any

of hazmat outfit. They pull this thing o

the machine. They s

grind this material off. 

 Some dumping was done during sample 

69-31. We don't know whether that was d
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 80

1 

2 

3 all. 

4 h the 

5 s was 

6 ation 

7 dows were opened and 

8 per nne

9 

10 

11 s and 

12 s so 

13 ndows 

14 dust 

15 that 

16 working in onto the floors, the 

17 walls, the machines, and to the outside 

18 

19 -- I 

20 don't know what standards they had in 1956 but 

21 I would think today, if somebody said well, we 

22 sent between one and two barrels of orange 

Once again, they talked about vacuums. 

 But finally, I would like to point 

out 69-40 and this is most disturbing of

 They talk about this part is also wit

cleanup of the machine where he notes thi

probably the dustiest of the decontamin

job. Doors and win

so l wore respirators. 

 It seems to me that during the 

cleanup and what they called decontamination 

of this machine, they opened up the door

windows of the building because it wa

dusty that they opened the doors and wi

to allow air to come in and move this 

around the building away from the area 

they were

environment. 

 I do not believe that by any
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 81

1 

2 

3 that 

4 erable 

5 to the 

6 d doors 

7 and then all of this dust was floated around. 

8 gave 

9 

10 

11 ation 

12 re was 

13 t the 

14 ter the machinery 

15 was cleaned and decontaminated, this was all 

16 

17 

18 

19 them, 

20 they ignored the fact that this dust, this 

21 material was blowing around the Baker-Perkins 

22 facility and that it remained there, even 

oxide somewhere. We don't know what it 

weighed. We don't know what we sent. We 

don't know what we got back. We do know

when they cleaned it there was a consid

amount of dust vented into the building 

point where they had to open windows an

 Now, in the report that they

us, this evaluation summary, they said, and 

this was from Mr. Stout and a Mr. Baumann and 

also in the evaluation summary, the alleg

or what they say here is that the exposu

only between the 14th and the 18th, tha

machinery was cleaned, and af

sent back and everything was fine. 

 Well, we contend, in reading this 

analytical data sheet, reading all of this 

information that they have available to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 82

1 

2 decontaminated. 

3 range 

4 much 

5 o you 

6 people 

7 n the 

8 nding 

9 

10 

11 have 

12 for 

13 . If we took a Geiger counter there, 

14 perhaps we could even pick up traces of it 

15 

16 that 

17 

18 

19 . I 

20 believe that the evidence -- we believe that 

21 the evidence shows that this material was 

22 blown around the area and there was no effort 

after the machines had been what they called 

 They don't know how much o

oxide was sent and they don't know how

was sent back. So the problem is, how d

have a dose reconstruction? Would 

continue to be exposed to it with dust o

floors, on the walls, in the surrou

areas? We don't know what the quantity of 

dust was or orange oxide was. We don't know 

how long it remained there. It could

remained there for weeks, for months,

years

today. 

 So the dose reconstruction 

they gave us in that report was, well, things 

were pretty dusty between the 14th and the 

18th but that ended the exposure level
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 83

1 

2 

3 s of 

4 was a 

5 nknown 

6 that was distributed on the 

7 sit at 

8 k you 

9 

10 

11 es, this is Amy 

12 Mur ky.

13 

14 ke to 

15 News 

16 nt of 

17 

18 

19 

20 I don't believe any of the 

21 employees were aware of what was actually 

22 going on in Baker-Perkins. And that is also 

to clean up the facility itself. There was 

only an effort to decontaminate and clean up 

the two machines. But in the proces

cleaning up these two machines, there 

considerable amount of material, an u

amount of material 

e Baker-Perkins. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, than

very much. Do any of your other colleagues 

there have comments or statements? 

MS. MURASKY: Y

as 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Amy. 

 MS. MURASKY: I would just li

add that I had provided a Saginaw 

article, which was from the Vice Preside

Baker-Perkins, and he had direct quotes that 

he was not even aware of the project that was 

going on in his plant. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 84

1 

2 

3 equ men

4 the 

5 this 

6 rt and we ask for a 

7 fav abl

8 kay, thank you 

9 very much. Any additional comments? 

10 

11 . It 

12 e days 

13 at is 

14 done 

15 e who 

16 deal 

17 

18 

19 form of just taking a number for a few days' 

20 exposure probably is not a very good 

21 reconstruction. Thank you. 

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. And was 

proven by there was no dose monitoring. 

Employees were not given personal protective 

ip t to wear. 

 And I would just ask that

Advisory Board make consideration for 

Special Exposure Coho

or e outcome on this. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: O

 MR. S. BRENNAN: Just that the 

exposure rates were not a finite number

did not just happen one day and then fiv

later end. It is, by the evidence th

there and the only documents and that was

by the inspector written by the peopl

were there, shown that there was a great

of dust that contaminated the entire building 

and possibly the drain system. And that the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 85

1 

2 MR. S. BRENNAN: Yes, it was. Yes, 

3 sir

4 ER: Okay, Stephen 

5 Bre an.

6 e for 

7 start with kind of a 

8 the eti

9 

10 

11 to be 

12 riod 

13 find 

14 re was no health risk in this case? 

15 Or obviously you could add it to another 

16 

17 

18 

19 ake a 

20 class for this period. However, no one would 

21 be compensated unless they had aggregated days 

22 from another facility to aggregate up to 250 

that Stephen speaking? 

. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEM

nn Thank you, Stephen. 

 Now let me open the floor her

questions. I want to 

or cal question, LaVon. 

 Let's suppose you found that you 

could not reconstruct dose. You have a fiveday period. It seems to me it is going 

pretty difficult to squeeze the 250-day pe

into that. Would you not automatically

that the

partial -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. As you are 

saying, if we found that we could not 

reconstruct dose, we would actually m
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 86

1 

2 

3 e-day 

4 to no 

5 ay you 

6 to exposure at an 

7 add ion

8 would 

9 

10 in any event. 

11 t is correct. 

12 Right. Okay, I 

13 jus wan

14 Yes. 

15 verse 

16 recommendation is. 

17 

18 

19 

20 MR. D. BRENNAN: I am David 

21 Brennan. The point we are trying to make here 

22 is the cleanup was so ineptly done that either 

days. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So health 

endangerment, with this restrictive fiv

period, would automatically default 

health endangerment, under the present w

operate, unless it was added

it al site that was an SEC. 

 So as a practical matter you 

end up then having to do dose reconstructions 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Tha

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER:

t ted to sort of understand -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD:

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- the con

of what the 

MR. D. BRENNAN: May I make a 

question here? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 87

1 

2 

3 on is 

4 dose 

5 ou cannot limit it just to 

6 tha fiv

7 that 

8 e who 

9 

10 

11 ve no 

12 it is likely 

13 that there was material that remained there 

14 

15 do a 

16 nclude 

17 

18 

19 ment, 

20 but also the employees of the plant wandering 

21 around in the plant doing their duties, 

22 stepping on this stuff, touching this stuff, 

they didn't know what they were working with 

or they certainly weren't trained in the 

material. But nevertheless, our contenti

if you are going to do any kind of 

reconstruction, y

t e-day period. 

 It was clear from the document

we have, from a witness who was ther

described the process that this material was 

handled in, and the fact that we don't know 

how much came there and certainly we ha

idea how much was sent back, that

that these people would be exposed to. 

 So if we want to go ahead and

dose reconstruction, it would not only i

five days of intense exposure of breathing 

clouds of this material, handling it with bare 

hands, not having any protective equip
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 88

1 

2 

3 we 

4 y had 

5 this 

6 ve-day 

7 that, 

8 rhaps 

9 

10 

11 nderstand that point, 

12 yes. 

13 

14 SON: LaVon, what was 

15 the product that they sent to them? There has 

16 got o b

17 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 

18 

19 

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: You know, we do 

21 not know the enrichment of the orange oxide 

22 that was sent to them. All we know is the 

and inhaling this stuff for an extended period 

of time. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes,

understood that point. My question reall

to do with how NIOSH was evaluating 

particular thing in terms of the fi

issue. But we understand your point is 

beyond the five days, there was pe

additional contamination throughout the plant 

that may have covered a much more extensive 

period of time. So we u

 Brad Clawson? 

 MEMBER CLAW

 t e shipping records. 

 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, what was it 

enriched to? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 89

1 

2 

3 sent. 

4 LAWSON: Now, this was 

5 hi d 

6 was 

7 from 

8 ok at 

9 

10 

11 t you 

12 1956 

13 ctive. 

14 rom a dose 

15 reconstruction perspective. I mean, we could 

16 

17 

18 

19 for 

20 everything else there, Fernald and so forth. 

21 We should have been able to see what product 

22 was sent up there. How much was sent up 

description of it being orange oxide. So we 

do not know the actual enrichment that was 

 MEMBER C

s ppe up to the plant? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, it

shipped from -- actually, it was taken

Fernald. I mean, we could actually lo

NLO records to see at that time. However, we 

did do a detailed search of our Fernald 

records on Baker-Perkins, as well. Bu

could look at what was being produced in 

at Fernald from the orange oxide perspe

 So that is not an issue f

deal with that, if that was a question. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, the point 

that I am getting about is we have seen that 

you guys have got pretty close details
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 90

1 

2 

3 that 

4 ources 

5 rt of 

6 nine 

7 r sampling data as well as the 

8 wat sa

9 

10 

11 d les 

12 ples. 

13 the 

14 

15 s an 

16 u look at the datasheets, of 

17 who was wearing respirators, when the feed 

18 

19 into 

20 account respiratory protection when we do dose 

21 reconstruction anyway. We assume no 

22 respiratory protection. So the intakes that 

there. And actually -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: The Fernald 

records had the same things that we had

we had actually received through other s

which was the actual trip, which the repo

the test operation itself, as well as 

pages of ai

er mples. 

 Air sampling data was taken by NLO. 

 It was NLO employees that did the work, that 

di the air samples, brought the air samp

back, and analyzed the sam

 MEMBER CLAWSON: And 

respirators and stuff, they -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: There i

indication, if yo

hoppers were loaded. 

 You know, again, we don't take
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 91

1 

2 

3 er. We have had that practice 

4 fro the

5 eets, 

6 the 

7 f you 

8 , the 

9 

10 

11 for 

12 ations 

13 The 

14 beyond 

15 -- is 

16 e-day activity, 

17 especially when your only production period is 

18 

19 k at 

20 the picture, this is a rotary-feed type of 

21 mixer. And it was mixed in a water ammonia 

22 solution. So again, you know, there was 

are given to the employees for dose 

reconstruction are based on no protection 

factors whatsoev

m beginning. 

 So if you look at the datash

and I agree with the petitioner on

descriptions that are there. However, i

look at the operations, the operations

14th and the 15th, two to three hours per day 

were the operations. You looked at the 

general area where air samples were run

short periods of time during those oper

to get that general area activity. 

deposition that would potentially occur 

the machine and the deposition on the 

going to be minimal over a fiv

roughly three to four hours per day. 

 And also remember, if you loo
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 92

1 

2 

3 know, 

4 orkers 

5 eneral 

6 tion 

7 can 

8 eriod 

9 

10 

11 cleanup is that there is no residual period 

12 bey d t

13 ER CLAWSON: Thank you. 

14 n and 

15 

16 hough 

17 

18 

19 were in the area following the actual period 

20 of activity may have been exposed at some 

21 level that would be of concern. 

22 Is the air sample data that you 

airborne. You know, I am not going to sit 

there and say there wasn't airborne 

contamination. There clearly was. You 

the breathing zones indicated to the w

that were loading the feed hopper, the g

area samples indicate there was some eleva

in the general area. However, we

reconstruct dose during that five-day p

and we feel that the deposition beyond that 

and the indication from the decontamination 

on hat. 

 MEMB

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Wanda Mun

then Mark Griffon. 

 MEMBER MUNN: It sounds as t

the concern here is that the dose rates may 

have been high enough that individuals who 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 93

1 

2 

3 not be a significant hazard to other workers? 

4 e the 

5 beyond 

6 tion 

7 dose 

8 tical 

9 

10 

11 re12 ntial 

13 been 

14 And 

15 rate, 

16 Because 

17 as it is re-suspended and moved, it is going -

18 

19 can 

20 be done but, you know, my professional 

21 judgment is that the actual dose to an 

22 individual from the re-suspension of that 

have adequate to identify that any residual 

contamination that might have existed would 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: We could tak

air sample data and, again, and this is 

the five-day evaluation of dose reconstruc

which we have said we can do 

reconstruction. If, you know, for prac

purposes we could take the air sample data, 

the general area air sample data, assume a 

deposition rate, and then assume a

suspension rate to come up with a pote

airborne concentration that would have

exposed to the workers post-May 18th. 

that would obviously decay at a rapid

based on that re-suspension, as well. 

- there is a removal constant there, as well. 

 Now, you know, I believe that
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 94

1 

2 

3 hav 't 

4 . 

5 d to 

6 Paul. 

7 ed time 

8 period is, like, for 12 years. It goes from -

9 - 

10 

11 t n that 

12 are getting at? 

13 Class 

14 

15 he petitioner 

16 pet ion

17 

18 

19 pretty much based on the employees operating 

20 time period at the facility, and petitioner 

21 will correct me if I am wrong. 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Until '68. Okay. 

material is going to be extremely low. You 

know, I can't give a number to it because I 

en done the numbers. 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Mark Griffon

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I wante

go back to what you were asking about, 

I am trying to understand why the defin

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well actually the 

pe itio er petitioned originally -- is 

what you 

MEMBER GRIFFON: The 

definition. 

MR. RUTHERFORD: T

it ed 12 years -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- and that was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 95

1 

2 

3 of 56.

4 

5 ually 

6 we qualified it was 

7 he y 

8 BER GRIFFON: So DOE only 

9 covered as one -- 

10 

11 

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: So then your 250 

13 analysis stands. Okay, I just wanted to 

14 

15 vered 

16 

17 

18 

19 says May of 1956. It does not break it down 

20 to the May 14th through May 15th as we defined 

21 it. 

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So at most, -- 

MR. RUTHERFORD: However, the 

covered period, the DOE covered period is May 

19 

MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: We have act

changed, you know, what 

t Ma 14th through May 18th. 

 MEM

MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, DOE has only 

covered May of 1956. 

 

clarify that. 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The DOE co

period is the five days? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually the DOE 

covered period, if you look at it, it just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 96

1 

2 month. 

3 AN ZIEMER: -- you could 

4 eva ate

5 ct. 

6 would 

7 period 

8 e period when the work was 

9 done for considering -- 

10 

11 

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- area 

13 type described by the 

14 pet ion

15 

16 ctually 

17 have environmental monitoring data after the 

18 

19 Say 

20 that again. I'm sorry. 

21 MEMBER LOCKEY: After the 

22 decontamination was completed, do you have a 

MR. RUTHERFORD: At most, it is one 

 CHAIRM

lu 30 days, -- 

MR. RUTHERFORD: That is corre

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- which 

only give you 12 days beyond the work 

or the sort of activ

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Exactly, because 

you start on May 14th and end at the -- 

 

contamination of the 

it ers. 

 Dr. Lockey. 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: Do you a

decontamination was completed, exit sampling? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Excuse me? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 97

1 

2 

3 -decon 

4 There 

5 d the 

6 on the 

7 equipment, but there is no post-decon survey. 

8 stion. 

9 

10 

11 ns of 

12 there 

13 this 

14 This 

15 e are 

16 icate 

17 

18 

19 cated 

20 that there was an old laboratory building and 

21 it was numbered. And in that old laboratory 

22 building, there were Ko-Kneaders that were 

final set of data? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: No. That is 

another -- there is no post

contamination survey of the equipment. 

is clear description of how they decon-e

equipment and what they did to dec

 MEMBER LOCKEY: One other que

 Do you know what this equipment was used for 

afterwards? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: By indicatio

the reports read and as well as the -- 

is a discussion with an employee. Now,

employee worked post this period: 1970. 

employee, one, indicated as long as w

into this discussion, the samples ind

that they were taken in Building 15 of the 

laboratory, which is supposedly where the 

tests were run. And the employee indi
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 98

1 

2 to test the equipment. 

3 he assumption 

4 s s 

5 was 

6 additional testing 

7 aft war

8 LaVon, if you 

9 were reconstructing for a claim, -- 

10 

11 only 

12 ou do 

13 the 

14 have air 

15 sampling data during the decontamination 

16 r 

17 

18 

19 s got 

20 to have been some residual contamination 

21 around. Intuitively, it seems like it would 

22 be low but based on the area air samplers, one 

used as tests for bringing in potential buyers 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: So t

i thi equipment was used afterwards. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, it 

probably used as 

er ds, for future buyers. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- would you

use the five-day active period or would y

what you just described for the rest of

month of May, using -- because you

pe iod. So you know what the levels were. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And the 

petitioner is probably right. There ha
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 99

1 

2 

3 ep ti

4 a 

5 area 

6 tors 

7 ndeed 

8 nal dose. I mean, is that what would 

9 be done? 

10 

11 ou do 

12 y, it 

13 resents an increase of some fraction 

14 of a percent or whatever it might be over the 

15 

16 ld do 

17 

18 

19 potential doses were at a de minimis level, 

20 then we would say that it's not -- no need to 

21 include them. 

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Robert Presley. 

could -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Do as I said, 

d osi on/re-suspension. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- make 

determination of the general 

contamination and using re-suspension fac

could calculate if there were i

additio

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, if we -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Or would y

it in sort of a modeling way and say oka

only rep

main dose? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: What we wou

is -- right. We would look at actually what 

the actual potential doses were. And if those 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 100

1 

2 

3 

4 are 

5 t. In fact, it is typically considered 

6 normal. 

7 ht. Exactly. 

8 

9 

10 

11 could 

12 nd in 

13 e not 

14 endous amount of uranium 

15 floating around in the air and things like 

16 tha whe

17 

18 

19 make sure I am clear. The last air sampling 

20 was done on May 18th. Is that correct? Or 

21 was there sampling done after that? 

22 MR. RUTHERFORD: May 18th was the 

MEMBER PRESLEY: Let me see if I am 

right. Orange oxide is a product of mostly U238, with less than 0.7 percent enrichment. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, you

correc

MEMBER PRESLEY: Rig

MR. RUTHERFORD: Natural. 

MEMBER PRESLEY: Natural uranium. 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 

 MEMBER PRESLEY: Which you 

find in paints on bridges. You could fi

pottery, in glaze. So you know, we ar

talking about a trem

t n they did this. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Josie Beach. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I just wanted to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 101

1 

2 

3 ce or 

4 umenting of when they actually 

5 rea the

6 dose 

7 igned to the personnel based on the air 

8 sam ing

9 

10 

11 right? 

12 ich, you know, we 

13 have to establish distribution to give to all 

14 

15 ion 

16 ished 

17 

18 

19 et the way Appendix K identifies it. 

20 You get a percentage of the breathing zone 

21 activity and a percentage of the general area 

22 activity. 

last sample. You will see that the samples 

were read on May 22nd, or 21st or 22nd. And 

that is, I am sure, the traveling distan

the actual doc

d samples. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, and then

was ass

pl ? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. What was 

done again, was we used the air sample data. 

We established a distribution. All 

Because one, we don't know wh

employees that are coming in here. 

 So, we established a distribut

for the general area samples. We establ

a distribution for the breathing zone. 

Depending on if you were an operator, you 

would g
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 102

1 

2 

3 n. And so that is how it 

4 is t u

5 final 

6 established 

7 out of the eight? Do you know how many? 

8 w. I 

9 

10 claims but I didn't look at what each person 

11 was den

12 nks. 

13 ? 

14 BER LOCKEY: Sorry. 

15 ional 

16 

17 

18 

19 Were 

20 there any other operations? This is a very 

21 short contract, obviously. What was the net 

22 result? They tested it in five days and 

And then a clerk or a supervisor 

would get just general area activity 

distribution and so o

se p in Appendix P. 

 MEMBER BEACH: And then a 

question. How many operators were 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I do not kno

didn't go back and -- I mean, I looked at the 

 i tifying. 

MEMBER BEACH: Tha

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Lockey? No

 MEM

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Addit

questions? Mark. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I just wondered 

if, through your interviews, or maybe the 

petitioner can shed some light on this. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 103

1 

2 

3 gain, 

4 n the 

5 just 

6 isture 

7 ocess. 

8 they 

9 

10 

11 ating 

12 h the 

13 e the 

14 f they were going to be able to 

15 maintain proper temperature for a production 

16 

17 

18 

19 and 

20 something. I can't remember. And right at 

21 the three-hour period, they recognized that 

22 they were not going to be able to maintain 

Fernald said we love it and we'll take ten? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: No. Actually what 

happened was the operation occurred as, a

they used a P and a K Ko-Kneader i

operation. The first two, few tests were

to see if they could get the right mo

content and the right mixture of the pr

 After that, they tried to extend because

noticed during that process that they were 

getting a heating of the material. The actual 

-- the product that was coming out was he

up. So they started being concerned wit

friction and generation that was insid

machinery i

scale of this. 

 And so ultimately, they ended up 

doing on the last test, they did a longer 

test, which was roughly three hours
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 104

1 

2 

3 dec ion

4 ght have 

5 said that earlier. I was probably reading. 

6 just 

7 zone 

8 nd stuff, did you run a reality 

9 check against -- 

10 

11 st to 

12 and see if you had such a source term, 

13 would you get values in that vicinity? They 

14 

15 RD: Well, you know, it 

16 is kind of hard because you didn't have 

17 

18 

19 

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- simulate that 

21 activity. Wherever the GA is established, 

22 exactly, you know, and the breathing zone 

temperature with that equipment without some 

major modification and ultimately, the 

is was made not to use that. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: You mi

 And did anyone run -- I mean,

looking at the numbers from the breathing

air samples a

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Today's standards? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, no. Ju

look 

look -- 

 MR. RUTHERFO

another piece of machinery. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: It was hard to 

simulate that operation. Right? Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 105

1 

2 So, 

3 just 

4 uranium 

5 operations so I thought you probably could -- 

6 d use 

7 ternal portion of it, 

8 nd pe

9 

10 

11 e12 

13 ional 

14 

15 other 

16 er is 

17 

18 that is referenced in here, you know, being 

19 s our 

20 decision. 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: There are, I 

22 think, only a couple outstanding issues on 

data. 

yes. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: But I am 

thinking we know quite a bit about 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Well, we di

surrogate data for the ex

a Ap ndix K or Appendix P. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: And that is 

Appendix B of 6001? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: P, of Battell

6000. 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Addit

questions or comments? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: The only 

thing I would say, Paul, for us to consid

that we are still reviewing TBD-6000. So, and 

used. So, I don't know how that impact
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 106

1 

2 

3 n on 

4 -6000 review has been closed. 

5 Tha is 

6 ccept 

7 to not accept the 

8 rec men

9 

10 

11 olved, 

12 sible 

13 nsible 

14 who 

15 like 

16 IOSH 

17 

18 allow NIOSH to continue their dose 

19 

20 MEMBER PRESLEY: Second. 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: There has been a 

22 motion and seconded by Mr. Presley. 

TBD-6000. Certainly, that should be close to 

closure. But this would be an option for the 

Board, if you wanted to defer final actio

this until TBD

t an option. 

 Another option would be to a

the recommendation or 

om dation. Wanda Munn. 

 MEMBER MUNN: In light of the small 

number of days involved and in light of the 

small amount of natural uranium inv

given that what we know now makes it pos

for us to provide a reasonable and defe

bounding case for any of the individuals 

were involved in this operation, I would

to move that we accept the N

recommendation to not accept this SEC and to 

reconstruction activities. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 107

1 

2 

3 at is 

4 month 

5 OE determination of the 

6 per d, 

7 that 

8 you 

9 

10 proposing that you do. 

11 

12 R: Because the first 

13 part of the month there was nothing and you 

14 dual. 

15 sking 

16 

17 

18 

19 just sort of speculating that had it 

20 been defined as we got it from DOE as the full 

21 month. It makes very little difference, it 

22 appears. 

Discussion on the motion? Again, I 

guess I would simply point out that even if 

this were expanded beyond the week th

shown, it would only expand through the 

of May, based on the D

io as I understand it. 

 And I am not sure, LaVon, if 

would make any difference anyway, if

called it the month of May. And I am not 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEME

only had 12 days of resi

MR. RUTHERFORD: Are you a

whether we will or will not? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It was more 

rhetorical. No, I wasn't asking if you would. 

 I was
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 108

1 

2 going -- I mean, I think -- 

3 ecause 

4 days. 

5 C doesn't do much for these folks, 

6 in y e

7 I was 

8 wered 

9 

10 you were presenting. But the D&D, the 

11 pet ion

12 

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- the adequacy of 

14 the D&D. Do you have measurements from the 

15 

16 what 

17 

18 

19 they 

20 were doing and how they were doing it. And 

21 there were air samples taken during the 

22 activity but we do not have a post-decon 

MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I was just 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, b

either way, you don't come close to 250 

 So, and SE

an vent. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. No, 

just going to ask and you may have ans

this, too. But I was kind of reading while 

it er seemed to be questioning -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes. 

D&D? 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, that is

I mentioned, that we do not have postdecontamination measurements of the equipment. 

 We have a detailed description of what
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 109

1 

2 

3 f the 

4 want 

5 ier I 

6 that, 

7 he petitioner can 

8 sti pu

9 

10 

11 re is 

12 l period. So that may be some 

13 recourse for the petitioner. You know, I just 

14 

15 always 

16 have 

17 

18 

19 ou el to 

20 Department of Labor, Department of Energy to 

21 adjust covered time periods. 

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Any other 

survey. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, I guess, I 

am really actually speaking in support o

motion because I think that -- but I do

to -- you know, I mean, the only qualif

have, I guess on my statements would be 

you know, if -- I mean, t

ll rsue other information -- 

MR. RUTHERFORD: That is correct. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- and get it to 

DOE to expand the covered period, if the

a residua

wanted to -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: And that is 

an option. Always an option. And as we

seen and as we continue to see when we do data 

captures, we get additional information, we 

r tin y provide that information 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 110

1 

2 accept the NIOSH recommendation? 

3 you 

4 n is 

5 would 

6 go to 

7 But 

8 is standard boilerplate if the motion 

9 passes. 

10 

11 l. We will also obtain 

12 Dr. Melius' vote separately. You will use a 

13 

14 I am going to use the 

15 original order right now and for the next 

16 vot we

17 

18 

19 ccept 

20 NIOSH's - 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: To accept NIOSH's 

22 recommendation. Their recommendation is that 

comments speaking for or against the motion to 

 There appear to be none. Are

ready to vote? And if the motio

successful, during our work period, we 

provide the detailed wording that will 

the Secretary for the Board to review. 

that 

 Are you ready to vote? Then we 

will vote by roll cal

different order this time. 

 MR. KATZ: 

e, will randomize it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Question? 

MEMBER CLAWSON: I just wanted -- 

what exactly are we voting on? To a
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 111

1 

2 

3 be a 

4 d, in 

5 ot be 

6 tary that this group 

7 be Spe

8 want 

9 

10 

11 ation, 

12 et it 

13 - you 

14 r you 

15 from later or whatever, you 

16 know, you can work with DOE to try to expand 

17 

18 MR. D. BRENNAN: If I could just 

19 ask qu

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, certainly. 

21 Go ahead. 

22 MR. D. BRENNAN: Right now you are 

they can do dose reconstruction and therefore, 

they are not recommending that Special Cohort 

Status be awarded to this. This would

recommendation -- well, actually it woul

essence, end there because we would n

recommending to the Secre

a cial Exposure Cohort. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I just

to state for the record again, you know, for 

the petitioner on the phone, it doesn't have 

to end there. If you find other inform

you know, you can work with NIOSH and g

to DOE and there is an opportunity to -

know, if there was other stuff done o

find D&D reports

the covered period. 

 

 a estion? This is Dave Brennan. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 112

1 

2 

3 vid. 

4 

5 are 

6 ds at 

7 se of 

8 that 

9 

10 

11 have been residual dusting throughout the 

12 

13 What information would we have to 

14 get to you to show that this might have some 

15 

16 n at 

17 

18 

19 bor. 

20 So as I understand it and I think NIOSH 

21 people can delineate this in more detail to 

22 you, but there would have to be some 

saying -- 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is this Dave? 

MR. D. BRENNAN: Yes, Da

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, David. 

 MR. D. BRENNAN: What you

saying now is that the covered period en

the end of May of '56, that for the purpo

dose reconstruction, you are not saying

it would extend further, despite the fact that 

at least, in our opinion, there appears to 

building. 

effect? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The situatio

the moment is that NIOSH is constrained by the 

way in which the period is defined by 

Department of Energy and Department of La
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 113

1 

2 

3 eyond 

4 y, if 

5 said 

6 correct? They are nodding that it 

7 is rre

8 ew of 

9 

10 

11 have been defined by DOE and Department of 

12 

13 ional 

14 

15 I was 

16 I can 

17 

18 

19 eration. So, 

20 extending the covered period might be an 

21 option but NIOSH likely would still say that 

22 they could do dose reconstruction. 

convincing evidence to, I believe, the 

Department of Energy and Labor, that there is 

reason to extend the covered period b

that month of May. I don't know, Larr

you or any of the staff -- is what I

basically

co ct. 

 It is not within the purvi

either NIOSH or of this Board to change the 

dates. We are constrained with the dates that 

Labor. 

Now Mark, do you have an addit

comment? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, and 

just going to say that May, I mean, 

certainly see a scenario where some of this 

contamination remained behind after this small 

operation, this short op
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 114

1 

2 

3 nd so 

4 some 

5 ight 

6 ings. 

7 some 

8 th to 

9 

10 

11 even 

12 if they can bound the dose 

13 that is not pertinent. Larry. This is Larry 

14 

15 ioner 

16 dual 

17 

18 

19 through the report to Congress 

20 on residual contamination for AWE facilities. 

21 And this is an AWE facility. And so, that 

22 should come to us. 

Because even if you said, you know, 

you lost ten percent or something of that 

material, it is not a lot of uranium. A

then they could probably bound and do

dose reconstructions but at least you m

get more people in the 250 days and th

So, I am thinking that that might be

option that the petitioner can work wi

extend that period beyond just this month of 

time. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Of course,

if it 250 days,

Elliott from NIOSH. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: If the Petit

identifies information that speaks to resi

contamination after the covered period, we 

would be most interested in that at NIOSH. 

Because we sat 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 115

1 

2 

3 no 

4 ioactive 

5 t l . 

6 so 

7 And 

8 ready 

9 

10 

11 guess you can work with LaVon and Larry 

12 

13 Okay. 

14 . I 

15 at there was one paid claim. Did 

16 they take that into effect, the timing, too, 

17 

18 

19 

20 MR. RUTHERFORD: There was one paid 

21 claim. The one paid claim actually did not 

22 use the approach of Appendix P. It was 

 Right now, our Residual 

Contamination Report shows, based upon the 

information that we have, that there is

residual contamination for rad

ma eria at this site, post this May period

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay,

petitioners then, you did hear that. 

NIOSH is indeed interested and have al

heard today your statements about that. But 

if that needs to be formalized further, I 

Elliott's staff on that. 

 MS. MURASKY: Larry Elliott? 

 I guess I was kind of questioning it

understand th

the date range? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Here is LaVon to 

answer that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 116

1 

2 

3 verestimating approach 

4 and paid some of our claims. 

5 

6 you. 

7 have 

8 re you ready to vote? 

9 We will do a roll call vote. 

10 

11 s. 

12 wson? 

13 Yes. 

14 on? 

15 es. 

16 ffon? 

17 

18 

19 . 

20 MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn? 

21 MEMBER MUNN: Aye. 

22 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston? 

actually prior to that Appendix being 

developed. It was back when we for a short 

period of time used an o

MS. MURASKY: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank 

 Okay, Board members, we still 

a motion before us. A

MR. KATZ: Ms. Beach? 

MEMBER BEACH: Ye

MR. KATZ: Mr. Cla

MEMBER CLAWSON: 

MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibs

MEMBER GIBSON: Y

MR. KATZ: Mr. Gri

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey? 

MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 117

1 

2 

3 s. 

4 ssler? 

5 s. 

6 field? 

7 s. 

8 Ziemer? 

9 

10 Okay, thank you very much. We 

11 still will get Dr. Melius' vote but the motion 

12 

13 k the 

14 as well for their participation 

15 and providing additional insights for us on 

16 

17 

18 now. We will have a 15-minute break and then 

19 resume o

20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off 

21 the record at 11:06 a.m. and 

22 resumed at 11:31 a.m.) 

MEMBER POSTON: Yes. 

MR. KATZ: Mr. Presley? 

MEMBER PRESLEY: Ye

MR. KATZ: Dr. Roe

MEMBER ROESSLER: Ye

MR. KATZ: Mr. Scho

MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Ye

MR. KATZ: And Dr.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 

does carry. 

 Thank you very much. We than

petitioners

these issues. 

 Now, we are going to take our break 

ur deliberations. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 118

1 

2 

3 meone 

4 and 

5 al is 

6 rway. 

7 t know if I can legally start without 

8 him ere

9 

10 

11 is an 

12 H is 

13 from 

14 well, 

15 e, if 

16 to speak and then an 

17 opportunity for Board discussion. So Dr. 

18 

19 emer. 

20 It always amazes me the diversity 

21 of issues that we discuss from the Oak Ridge 

22 Hospital to the Baker-Perkins kneader/mixer 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We are going to 

resume our deliberations, if you would take 

your seats, please. And if Greg or so

near the back could stick your neck out

see if our Designated Federal Offici

floating around there so we can get unde

 I don'

 h . 

 Okay. We are going to resume our 

deliberations. The next item on our agenda is 

the Lake Ontario Ordnance Works SEC. It 

83.14 petition and Dr. Neton from NIOS

going to present the Evaluation Report

NIOSH. And then we will have, as 

opportunity to hear from petitioner onlin

the petitioner wishes 

Neton, the podium is yours. 

 DR. NETON: Thank you, Dr. Zi
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 119

1 

2 

3 Ordnance Works Special Exposure 

4 Coh t p

5 tition 

6 t is, 

7 e we 

8 or an 

9 

10 

11 nance 

12 947 and 1951. And the petition 

13 was received by NIOSH for evaluation on May 

14 

15 Lake 

16 nt of 

17 

18 

19 went on except for 

20 the fact that radioactive materials from 

21 various sites were transferred there for 

22 storage and ultimate disposition. 

and then, today, I am going to talk a little 

slightly different from that, which is the 

Lake Ontario 

or etition. 

 A little bit about the pe

overview. This is an 83.14 petition, tha

a NIOSH self-initiated petition, wher

obtained a petition from two survivors f

Energy employee whose dose reconstruction we 

believe could not be completed. The Energy 

employee worked at the Lake Ontario Ord

Works between 1

18th of this year. 

 A little on the background of

Ontario Ordnance. It is a Departme

Energy facility, not an AWE, that is covered 

from 1944 through 1997. It essentially was a 

storage depot. Very little 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 120

1 

2 

3 were 

4 And 

5 that 

6 blende 

7 ed at 

8 essed 

9 

10 

11 hi d and 

12 

13 1949, 

14 e ore 

15 gly, 

16 ation 

17 

18 

19 the way to Belgium. 

20 And for some reason, they stopped that 

21 shipment in early '49 and started shipping the 

22 residues to Linde for storage. 

The material came in from a variety 

of sites, as you can see on the slide. The 

first shipments of material that arrived

from Linde Air Products starting in 1944.

if you recall, Linde Air Products during

time period actually processed pitch

ore, a lower grade than what was process

Mallinckrodt but nonetheless, they proc

pitchblende ore to extract uranium. And so 

the various residues from that process were 

s ppe and stored at Linde between 1944

1946. 

 Subsequent to that in 

Mallinckrodt Chemical Works' pitchblend

residues began to be shipped. Interestin

I just realized in looking at this Evalu

Report that between 1946 and 1949, the 

Mallinckrodt pitchblende ore residues were 

actually shipped back all
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 121

1 

2 

3 nt of 

4 m-226 and associated progeny, was shipped 

5 there. 

6 ere a 

7 that 

8 atory 

9 

10 

11 bottoms that included various isotopes of 

12 

13 e was 

14 e all 

15 t of 

16 ides. 

17 

18 

19 

20 And in addition to that, other 

21 decommissioned facilities, as material became 

22 available, was shipped there, which would 

So nonetheless, between '49 and 

'53, Mallinckrodt pitchblende ore residues, 

which of course includes a high amou

radiu

 In addition to that, there w

number of other miscellaneous shipments 

occurred; Knolls Atomic Power Labor

shipped a number of drums. I believe they 

were liquid waste that contained evaporator 

fission products and plutonium. 

 University of Rochester wast

shipped there at one period. And w

remember University of Rochester did a lo

metabolic research with various radionucl

 So I think this included a lot of 

contaminated animal carcasses and laboratory 

waste. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 122

1 

2 

3 sort of smaller uranium processing operations. 

4 sort 

5 which 

6 idues, 

7 orium 

8 ranium 

9 

10 of billets, not drummed powders or anything of 

11 

12 stop 

13 f the 

14 y are 

15 have 

16 o this 

17 

18 

19 

20 To look at how we could go about 

21 dose reconstructions, we went through our 

22 usual sources of available information. We 

include various reduction slags and 

contaminated crucibles and stuff from various 

 The third bullet on this slide

of goes over what I just talked about, 

is the source term, pitchblende ore res

uranium. I didn't mention the uranium th

billets. There was thorium and u

shipped there as well for storage in the form 

that nature. 

 Nonetheless, the shipments did

in 1953. I should also mention that o

shipments that we have listed here, the

the ones that we know about. We don't

all of the shipping manifests or logs, s

is sort of a minimum bottom, a minimal amount. 

 There could have been others that just we are 

not aware of. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 123

1 

2 

3 iews 

4 the 

5 at we 

6 es and there were some online 

7 dat ase

8 rts, 

9 

10 

11 tario 

12 atives 

13 agers 

14 t of 

15 n the 

16 time. 

17 

18 

19 New York State Department of 

20 Environmental Conservation, the NRC, the DOE 

21 records, including OSTI, OpenNet, and the 

22 National Archives. 

looked at our OCAS -- our site research 

database. Various data capture efforts were 

conducted. There were some worker interv

conducted which included review of

Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviews th

do for all cas

ab searches. 

 As far as the data capture effo

we went and talked to a number of 

representatives from the various site 

contractors who managed the Lake On

Ordnance site. That included represent

from Bechtel, B&W, OxyChem, project man

for the Corps of Engineers. There is a lo

different people that had their hands i

operations there at various periods of 

This is a listing of all of the data capture 

efforts that we have conducted, including 

those at the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 124

1 

2 

3 laims 

4 at we 

5 SEC, 

6 tween 

7 here 

8 that 

9 

10 

11 their file, case file, and three had some 

12 

13 term 

14 could 

15 s to 

16 ome 

17 

18 

19 ecause we don't 

20 know how much material was actually shipped 

21 there. We know what was shipped, to some 

22 degree, but we don't know all of it. 

As far as claims go, we have a 

total of 38 claims that have been submitted to 

NIOSH for reconstruction. But of the c

that meet the criteria for the Class th

are recommending for inclusion in the 

which is people who have worked be

January 1, 1944 and December 31, 1953, t

are only seven claims that meet 

definition. Of those seven claims, one of 

them had internal dosimetry information in 

external dosimetry information. 

 I mentioned about the source 

that was available. We looked at how we 

go about characterizing the operation

conduct dose reconstructions and we have c

to the conclusion that between 1944 and 1953, 

there is insufficient information to 

characterize the source term b
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 125

1 

2 

3 that 

4 the 

5 could 

6 ition 

7 source term 

8 ava abl

9 

10 

11 these 

12 , we 

13 t restrict our evaluation to a certain 

14 i g n a 

15 

16 the 

17 

18 

19 where 

20 material is stored is quite possible and, in 

21 principle, could be very high. And as I 

22 mentioned, the internal exposures potential 

In addition to that, if you recall, 

a lot of the Mallinckrodt waste was shipped 

there. The pitchblende ore residues, 

material is actually transferred from

drums and dumped into open silos which 

create a serious dusty environment in add

to having a fairly large radon

il e for exposure to the workers. 

 We could find no information in the 

data searches to establish any of the 

radiological boundaries of where 

operations occurred. In other words

couldn'

bu ldin , an area of a building or eve

building. 

 Of course because of 

pitchblende ore source term and the presence 

of thorium billets and such, potential 

external exposure at all locations 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 126

1 

2 

3 tes a very high potential for 

4 int nal

5 thing 

6 other 

7 nium, the thorium, 

8 the iss

9 

10 

11 o us, 

12 1951. 

13 imited 

14 breath 

15 at is 

16 dens, 

17 

18 

19 

20 And there was very limited uranium 

21 and I think there is a typo on this slide. 

22 That should say uranium and radium data. 

from the dumping of drums of K-65, especially 

from the Mallinckrodt chemical works material 

into silos crea

er exposure. 

 And again, we don't know any

about the handling practices for the 

materials such as the pluto

 f ion products, et cetera. 

 So what type of data do we have as 

far as internal dose reconstruction? There is 

no internal monitoring data available t

that we could find at least, prior to 

Prior to 1954, the bioassay data is l

before 1954. It included some radon 

data. Of course, that is a technique th

used to try to establish radium body bur

which would be an indication that there was at 

least some concern at the site that people 

were inhaling a radium source term. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 127

1 

2 

3 t 

4 data 

5 the 

6 some 

7 were 

8 e was 

9 

10 

11 o use 

12 es to 

13 e not 

14 f the SEC class because of having 

15 non-presumptive cancers or a short duration of 

16 

17 

18 

19 able 

20 some time in mid-1949. And we have looked at 

21 this in some detail and we believe that there 

22 is sufficient data available to develop 

There were some radium bioassay samples and 

uranium bioassay samples but very limited in 

na ure.

 There was no bioassay 

available for plutonium, thorium, or 

fission products. And there were 

localized radon area samples that 

collected between 1949 and 1951. Ther

some gross alpha air measurements available 

only for a short period of time in 1951. 

 When available, we do intend t

individual data that is available for cas

reconstruct doses for those who would b

members o

employment. 

 The data available for external 

dose reconstruction, we have film badges. 

Film badge results started to be avail
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 128

1 

2 before that time. 

3 '53, 

4 toring 

5 es to 

6 ve no 

7 prior 

8 to '53 from the external exposure perspective. 

9 

10 

11 g the 

12 ave in one of our 

13 TIBs that sort of addresses this exposure 

14 

15 en the 

16 which 

17 

18 

19 lete source term, we have come to 

20 the conclusion that we cannot reconstruct 

21 external internal doses at Lake Ontario 

22 Ordnance Works. 

coworker distributions after 1953 but not 

 So for non-SEC cases prior to

again, we will use any individual moni

data that we can pull out of the case fil

reconstruct doses but we believe we ha

ability to accurately reconstruct doses

 As with many of these sites, we 

believe the occupational medical doses can be 

reconstructed over all time periods, usin

existing methods that we h

pathway on a complex-wide basis. 

 So regarding feasibility, giv

lack of any of this monitoring data, 

would include internal-external exposure data, 

any air sample data, any area monitoring data, 

and an incomp
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 129

1 

2 

3 ata that we have to 

4 com ete

5 -- is 

6 TIB, 

7 the 

8 ng the complex-wide TIB for 

9 dose reconstructions. 

10 

11 ealth 

12 nd we 

13 idence 

14 have 

15 fact, 

16 lated 

17 

18 

19 o was 

20 employed and exposed, who was employed at the 

21 site for 250 days within the parameters 

22 established for the Class. And as usual, that 

And as I mentioned before, for nonpresumptive cancers, we will use any available 

external and internal d

pl dose reconstruction. 

 I have mentioned this before 

that TIB-006? Yes, that is the right 

isn't it? Yes, we will reconstruct

medical doses usi

 So, since we can't reconstruct 

doses for this time period, h

endangerment needs to be evaluated. A

have looked at that and we found no ev

of episodic acute exposures that would

been present in the work force. And in 

we believe that they would have accumu

exposures on a chronic basis, more than 

likely. So the health endangerment in this 

case would be defined as anyone wh
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 130

1 

2 

3 pre ous

4 s the 

5 DOE, 

6 s who 

7 n the 

8 nuary '44 through December 31, 1953 

9 

10 

11 oses, 

12 amma, 

13 neutron doses reconstructable up 

14 through 1953, and medical x-rays can be 

15 rec str

16 tion. 

17 

18 Neton. Let me ask now if the petitioner is on 

19 

20 (No response.) 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The indication I 

22 got was that the petitioner might be on the 

would be aggregated in combination with any 

work days from other classes that have been 

vi ly established. 

 So, the slide here gives u

proposed class, which is all employees of

its predecessor agencies, and contractor

worked at Lake Ontario Ordnance betwee

first of Ja

for 250 days. 

 And this slide provides our 

recommendation which is internal d

reconstruction is not feasible, nor are g

beta, and 

on ucted. 

 And that concludes my presenta

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you, Dr. 

the line and wishes to speak. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 131

1 

2 

3 point. 

4 stions 

5 n you 

6 sical 

7 ltiple 

8 ng everyone 

9 on the site, I guess, as I understand it. 

10 

11 aVon to give me some 

12 

13 

14 IRMAN ZIEMER: There is no 

15 restriction. It is everyone who worked there. 

16 Is hat

17 

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And we have no 

19 indication that there was any restricting to 

20 sort of areas where they stored this stuff, I 

21 guess. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I don't believe 

line depending on his work schedule, so 

perhaps he is not able to participate at this 

 Let me open the floor for que

from the Board. Let me start, Jim. Ca

give us a little better idea of the phy

size and layout of this facility, mu

buildings and so on? We are coveri

 DR. NETON: Yes, that is correct. 

I might have to rely on L

help. I am not that familiar with -- I know 

it is a fairly large facility. 

 CHA

 t correct? 

 DR. NETON: That is correct. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 132

1 

2 

3 were 

4 s the 

5 n the order of a 

6 ou h

7 an 

8 what 

9 

10 

11 name 

12 the time the 

13 Department of Energy was utilizing it, its 

14 wor as 

15 

16 at is 

17 

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So this is what 

19 the did

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that is 

21 the case. 

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I got you. 

so. I mean, it was hundreds of acre site 

originally. It was subsequently reduced in 

size and some of the outlying properties

sold privately. But as late as the ‘80

property, I want to say was o

c ple undred acres at that time. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: This is

ordnance work, so they were doing 

ordnance places do besides storing waste, I 

guess. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe the

is historical. I believe by 

k an ordnance facility was done. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I believe th

the situation. 

 

y , period. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 133

1 

2 

3 tions or comments, Board members? Yes, 

Mar

5 ut-off 

6 data 

7 there 

8 ords, 

9 

10 

11 there monitoring records, though, or there 

12 is some internal monitoring records beyond 

13 

14 ecords 

15 h is 

16 became 

17 

18 

19 eople 

20 would come in and do surveys and such to 

21 characterize the contamination levels and 

22 such. But during most of this time it was, 

DR. NETON: That is correct. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Any other 

ques

4 k. 

MEMBER GRIFFON: Just on the c

period, Jim, you said you had sufficient

beyond that and it says sort of in '54 

is enough static information. In other w

the shipments stopped but you have a good 

handle on what was there and what -- I mean, 

are 

that? 

 DR. NETON: Yes, monitoring r

become more abundant after '53, whic

interesting. That is when the material 

more static. But there were a number of 

characterizations of the site over time, like 

three or four different instances where p
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 134

1 

2 

3 , not much was 

4 don wit

5 elieve 

6 . But 

7 mpling 

8 says. 

9 

10 

11 airborne were more appropriately monitored so 

12 e. 

13 up 

14 still 

15 dose 

16 you going to need 

17 

18 you might rely on coworker models? 

19 are 

20 developing those approaches. 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. All right. 

22 DR. NETON: I mean, as with any 

you know, what we would characterize as a 

caretaker operation, which the material just 

happened to be there. I mean

e h it, with a few exceptions. 

 At one point in 1958, I b

they disposed of the Knolls atomic waste

that was monitored. There was an air sa

campaign associated with that, some bioas

 So activities that we do know about after 

that time period that could have generated 

that we have information that we could us

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Just to follow

on that, so beyond that point, are you 

developing your approaches for 

reconstruction? I mean, are 

coworker models? You have some internal but 

DR. NETON: Right. We
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 135

1 

2 

3 tha cla

4 

5 ZIEMER: Further questions 

6 or mme

7 would 

8 iate 

9 

10 

11 Secretary that this be designated as an SEC 

12 class. 

13 

14 t? 

15 just 

16 d you get a 

17 satisfactory answer to your question about the 

18 

19 ng to 

20 get a feel as to whether other things were 

21 going on at the site that may have nothing to 

22 do with waste storage. And my understanding 

83.14, we try to get these added as soon as 

possible to get some relief for members of 

t ss. 

MEMBER GRIFFON: Right. Okay.

 CHAIRMAN 

co nts on this one? 

 If there are none, a motion 

be in order at this time. The appropr

motion probably would be to accept the 

recommendation of NIOSH and recommend to the 

MEMBER PRESLEY: So moved. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Comment firs

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I was

going to say, I am not sure. Di

-- again, it is the all worker question. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I was tryi
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 136

1 

2 

3 were 

4 ved with this activity is what 

5 it pea

6 have 

7 that, 

8 , you 

9 

10 

11 are not sure if they could have been in the 

12 

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No indication 

14 that they were restricted from active areas or 

15 ersa. 

16 get a 

17 

18 

19 

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

21 MEMBER PRESLEY: But according to 

22 their website, they manufactured TNT up until 

is that basically that is all that was going 

on. So the size, in my mind, becomes somewhat 

immaterial. If they work there, they

probably invol

ap rs to me. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: And it would

been -- I mean, the question strikes me 

you know, even at this kind of place

probably had administrative offices and things 

like that. And you are just going to say we 

field or -- 

 

vice-v

I think we were about to 

motion. 

MEMBER PRESLEY: Well, I said so 

moved. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 137

1 

2 

3 But I make a motion that we approve this. 

4 might have 

5 been a little overlap in the other work. 

6 

7 is to 

8 etary adding 

9 a class to the SEC. Is there a second? 

10 of seconds.) 

11 e are 

12 veral seconds here. 

13 third 

14 

15 h second was 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 (No response.) 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We will take a 

22 roll call vote, re-randomized. 

1946 and then after, they were used by the 

Army Warfare Services as a storage facility. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: There

MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The motion 

approve and recommend to the secr

 (Chorus 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, ther

se

MEMBER PRESLEY: Okay, I will 

it. 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Whic

first? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Probably mine. 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Any 

discussion on the motion? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 138

1 

2 

3 essler? 

4 es. 

5 esley? 

6 es. 

7 oston? 

8 Yes. 

9 

10 

11 ey? 

12 es. 

13 ffon? 

14 Yes. 

15 on? 

16 es. 

17 

18 

19 ch? 

20 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

21 MR. KATZ: Dr. Ziemer? 

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield? 

MEMBER SCHOFIELD: Yes. 

MR. KATZ: Dr. Ro

MEMBER ROESSLER: Y

MR. KATZ: Mr. Pr

MEMBER PRESLEY: Y

MR. KATZ: Dr. P

MEMBER POSTON: 

MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn? 

MEMBER MUNN: Aye. 

MR. KATZ: Dr. Lock

MEMBER LOCKEY: Y

MR. KATZ: Mr. Gri

MEMBER GRIFFON: 

MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibs

MEMBER GIBSON: Y

MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson? 

MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. 

MR. KATZ: Ms. Bea
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 139

1 

2 

3 will 

4 go 

5 the Secretary with this 

6 rec men

7 eclare 

8 and we will 

9 

10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off 

11 the record at 11:52 a.m. and 

12 resumed at 1:35 p.m.) 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

The motion carries. We will, for 

the record, obtain Dr. Melius' vote as well. 

And at our work session tomorrow, we 

provide the precise wording that will 

forward to

om dation. 

 With that, we are going to d

that our morning session is ended

recess for lunch and reconvene at 1:30. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 140

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 141

1 

2 

3 dy to 

4 item 

5 nce update and that 

6 wil be 

7 iemer. 

8 ations 

9 

10 

11 with 

12 roduce 

13 Board 

14 would 

15 us of 

16 But I 

17 

18 

19 is a 

20 few interesting things developing that I had 

21 hoped to talk about in future meetings, such 

22 as the development of exposure models for 

A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 

1:35 p.m. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We are rea

begin our afternoon session. The first

on our agenda is the scie

l presented by Dr. Neton. 

 DR. NETON: Thank you, Dr. Z

 Now you get to listen to me two present

in a row. And hopefully after lunch, I won't 

put you to sleep. 

 I will be fairly brief today

my comments. It is difficult to p

earth-shaking science in between every 

meeting. So, I have got a few items I 

like to highlight of progress and stat

where we are with certain key issues. 

will say that there are a few, a lot of the 

science behind the scenes is going on in the 

working groups at this time. And there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 142

1 

2 

3 are 

4 when 

5 oassay samples. But 

6 tha is 

7 oday, 

8 hat I 

9 

10 

11 ok an 

12 dge, 

13 r, to 

14 gram. 

15 m the 

16 se it 

17 

18 

19 

20 original IREP model for the actual equations 

21 that go into the model. 

22 In this particular effort, we 

internal exposure to ceramic metals such as 

you heard about at Mound. In addition, some 

unique statistical applications we 

developing for analyzing coworker models

you have no positive bi

t for a future meeting. 

 I would like to start off t

though to expand a little bit on w

brought to the Board in the February meeting, 

which is the verification of the NIOSH-IREP 

program. If you recall, we underto

effort with the support of SENES Oak Ri

our contractor, our risk model contracto

do a verification of the NIOSH-IREP pro

I would like to distinguish that fro

verification and validation effort becau

is our opinion that the validation effort was 

actually conducted years ago by the National 

Academy of Sciences when they reviewed the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 143

1 

2 

3 o go 

4 is 

5 y calculating the numbers as we 

6 

7 k in 

8 were 

9 

10 

11 n the 

12 t on 

13 And 

14 here. 

15 acute 

16 cond bullet 

17 is the uncertainty equation for the age18 

19 four 

20 groups of cancers within NIOSH-IREP. Group 1 

21 cancers are typically those that have a higher 

22 incidence, such as liver and breast cancer. 

undertook a project to basically compare the 

numerical data that is in IREP source code 

using, essentially, Excel spreadsheets t

through and verify that the program

actuall

intended. 

 And if your recall bac

February, identified that three -- there

a few typographical errors and such but what 

arose from this entire analysis was that there 

were three errors that were identified i

code that could have or did have an effec

the estimate of Probability of Causation.

I list those three under the bullets 

That is the estimate of risk in the

lymphocytic leukemia model. The se

dependency modifier for Group 2 cancers. 

 If you recall, there is like 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 144

1 

2 age exposure and age diagnosis. 

3 the, 

4 lower 

5 re is 

6 them 

7 uncertainty associated with the 

8 cen al 

9 

10 

11 lymphoma, esophageal cancer, and a number of 

12 

13 ticed 

14 screpancy was the uncertainty in the 

15 modifier for age dependency in the NIH lung 

16 

17 

18 

19 ases 

20 that we processed thus far. And I have to 

21 say, with the help of Daniel Stancescu, who is 

22 our staff statistician who has done an 

And the excess relative risk is modified for 

 Group 2 cancers are for 

essentially the cancers that have a 

incidence rate. And because of that, the

an uncertain equation that is applied to

to expand the 

tr estimate. 

 So that applied to those Group 2 

cancers. And there is a number of those, 

the digestive track cancers. 

 And the third area where we no

a di

model. 

 Well, we took a look at those just 

to find out what effect these errors in the 

program would have on the 29,000 or so c
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 145

1 

2 

3 pot tia

4 there 

5 cases, 

6 model 

7 s the 

8 he cases, I think, as of mid-March 

9 of this year. 

10 

11 ersion 

12 with 

13 dicate 

14 ctions 

15 y, in 

16 tral 

17 

18 

19 And indeed, we discovered that no case would 

20 be compensable under the new algorithm once we 

21 put it into effect. 

22 So, we are going to go through, as 

excellent job pulling these out, this was not 

an easy job, he identified 50 cases that are 

en lly affected by these errors. 

 And you see listed here, 

would be 41 acute lymphocytic leukemia 

six group 2 cancers, and three NIH lung 

cases. I should say that this reflect

status of t

 We ran all cases using the new 

algorithm, a test version, a prototype v

of the IREP program that we intend to use

the corrections installed. And I did in

at the last meeting that these corre

were minor. They were errors, essentiall

the uncertainty parameter, not of the cen

estimate. So, we expected that the change in 

the Probability of Causation would be small. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 146

1 

2 

3 nclude 

4 e new 

5 n 5.6 

6 e will 

7 mid8 will 

9 

10 pull the cases out and re-validate which ones 

11 

12 ation 

13 t the 

14 It 

15 when 

16 is a 

17 

18 

19 bles, 

20 with comparison tables. I think the text 

21 itself is really somewhere in the order of 30 

22 to 40 pages. So it is out there. I would 

is our normal mode of practice to issue a 

Program Evaluation Report. We will upgrade 

that Program Evaluation Report to i

cases up to the date that we switch to th

IREP. And the new IREP would be versio

and our current estimate is that w

switch over to that program. Right now

August is our best estimate is when we

switch. At the time we switch, then we will 

need to be re-certified. 

 A copy of the IREP valid

report we put out on the website a

address that is indicated on the slide.

was just out there, I think last week is

we posted it so it is fairly new. It

500-page report. So, give yourself some time. 

 Although, I would say most of it, as you can 

imagine in an effort of this type is ta
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 147

1 

2 down from the website and take a look at it. 

3 h how 

4 ourse, 

5 knock on wood, it 

6 cou ha

7 ke to 

8 ukemia 

9 

10 

11 are 

12 inal, 

13 odel. 

14 atter 

15 five 

16 nited 

17 

18 

19 

20 I was going to mention that 

21 unfortunately for us, Maxia Dong, our staff 

22 epidemiologist and physician has left NIOSH 

encourage anyone who is interested to pull it 

 But we are pretty pleased wit

this came out. We are not happy, of c

there were three errors but 

ld ve been worse, I suppose. 

 The second issue I would li

talk about is the chronic lymphocytic le

model. I feel like a broken record because I 

have been here many times talking about this 

and giving status updates but this time we

getting very close. We have issued the f

well, the latest version of the risk m

We have put out for review to subject m

experts. We have solicited input from

subject matter experts, two from the U

Kingdom, three from the U.S. We are hoping to 

get those review comments in mid to late 

August. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 148

1 

2 

3 this 

4 the 

5 h we 

6 Ridge, 

7 r contractor who does most of this work for 

8 us.

9 

10 

11 evious 

12 ck to 

13 art-time, very part-time, and assist us 

14 in the interim while we search to fill that 

15 

16 l out 

17 

18 first go-round we put out was a plausibility 

19 final 

20 model. 

21 In parallel with that, we are also 

22 having the dosimetry model being evaluated 

about a month or so ago, took a new position 

at the National Center for Environmental 

Health and we are without her services at

time. So, you are kind of looking at

acting risk-modeling person, althoug

fortunately have the help of SENES Oak 

ou

 Since Maxia has left, those of you 

who have been on the Board for a while might 

remember Russ Henshaw who was our pr

epidemiologist. He has agreed to come ba

NIOSH p

position. 

 At any rate, we put this mode

for review. This is the second go-round. The 

review. This last go-round is the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 149

1 

2 

3 sanity 

4 check to make sure 

5 tha t 

6 this 

7 ow is 

8 es to 

9 

10 

11 ouple 

12 y to 

13 ke sure 

14 it is do-able on sort of a mass production 

15 ow. 

16 model. 

17 

18 

19 there. We actually are soliciting input from 

20 the subject experts as to which approach might 

21 be a more viable alternative. 

22 It assumes that the excess relative 

both in-house and by an internal dosimetry 

expert located in Oak Ridge, who was going 

through the calculations, just to do a 

check again, a final sanity 

t i is workable in the field. 

 It is one thing to have 

theoretical model that we propose but h

this really going to work when push com

shove when you start to try to process, you 

know, I am not sure how many CLL cases we are 

going to have but let's say it is a c

hundred. We have to have the abilit

automate this, computerize it, and ma

basis. And we are looking at that right n

 Just a little bit about the 

 It is based on the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma 

and/or multiple myeloma model. The models are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 150

1 

2 it has some adjustments for attained age. 

3 m the 

4 mphoma 

5 more 

6 f how 

7 nd so 

8 rs, we don't 

9 

10 

11 ed an 

12 t the 

13 excess relative 

14 risk receiver in this model would be attained 

15 

16 would 

17 

18 

19 f our 

20 roadmap to which organs we reconstruct for 

21 different covered cancers. It also provides 

22 the IREP risk model and it is all key to the 

risk receiver is equal between both sexes and 

 The big difference here fro

multiple myeloma or the non-Hodgkin's ly

model is that the latency period is much

protracted because that is the reality o

chronic lymphocytic leukemia develops. A

as we have done with other cance

start and stop. You know, there is no 

Litmus Test for when the latency period is 

valid or not. We have actually implement

S-shaped function that has 15 years a

mid-point. And the maximum 

at 25 years post-original exposure. 

 Okay, the last thing I just 

like to mention is a change in the organ of 

dose reconstruction, you might recall that 

TIB-005 is our document that is sort o
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 151

1 

2 Disease Code 9. 

3 here 

4 obably 

5 other 

6 call, 

7 for 

8 homas, 

9 

10 

11 te of 

12 after 

13 at it and 

14 reflecting on it, the original organ was 

15 

16 ally 

17 

18 

19 uct. 

20 That is ICD-9 Code 155.1. It is classified 

21 as a liver cancer but it is not the cancer of 

22 the liver cells themselves, the hepatocytes. 

ICD-9 code, the International Classification 

 And I put a little excerpt up

from TIB-005. You may recall that pr

the last time that we did this, the only

time that we have done this that I can re

is when we changed the target organ

lymphomas. And as you see here, lymp

the target organ is now for internal dose, is 

the thoracic lymph nodes, which prior to that, 

I think we had it designated as the si

diagnosis which, you know, 

retrospective, you know, looking 

incorrect and we made that modification. 

 Well, in going through and actu

this came about as a result of an inquiry from 

a claimant. We recently reviewed the 

assignment of cancer of the intrahepatic d
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 152

1 

2 

3 e are 

4 that 

5 the 

6 liver that we model 

7 wit the

8 of 

9 

10 

11 ly in 

12 ually 

13 ates into such small duct works that it 

14 ue 

15 

16 ternal 

17 

18 

19 r the 

20 intrahepatic duct to be the liver. As you see 

21 right now, it is the gall bladder and the 

22 bladder which just did not -- it made some 

It is a cancer of the plumbing, if you will, 

the internal plumbing, of the transfer of the 

bile material through the liver. So ther

some arguments that could be made that 

tissue is different, different than

metabolic tissue of the 

h internal dose organs. 

 But in obtaining the opinion

some medical experts and reviewing the 

literature, it became pretty clear that we 

couldn't make that distinction, especial

cases when the hepatic duct act

bifurc

is intimately involved with the liver tiss

itself. 

 So, after some in

consultation, we made a decision that that is 

just not appropriate and we are reclassifying 

the target organ to be reconstructed fo
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 153

1 

2 

3 nd it 

4 , for 

5 to, 

6 ium, 

7 to 

8 get a 

9 

10 

11 bladder here, which is essentially a non12 

13 . We 

14 best 

15 is a 

16 e got 

17 

18 

19 that have been reconstructed prior to this 

20 time, using the gall bladder as the internal 

21 target organ. 

22 So we are going to do a Program 

sense when the model was first proposed but in 

looking at it, we feel to be claimant 

favorable, we are going to reclassify. A

makes some difference for those organs

those cases where there has been exposure

in particular, actinides or pluton

specifically. Plutonium is known

concentrate in the liver. So you will 

much higher liver dose if you reconstruct the 

dose of the liver than you would for the gall 

metabolic organ. 

 So this will affect some cases

are going to go back and right now, our

estimate, it is surprising because it 

fairly rare cancer but when you hav

20,000 something of anything, you end up with 

a fairly high number. There is about 25 cases 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 154

1 

2 

3 bably 

4 ffect, 

5 ect on 

6 So, I 

7 l report later on how that analysis comes 

8 out. 

9 

10 this slide is redundant. Yes. So anyway, 

11 u. 

12 ZIEMER: I appreciate the 

13 update. Now let's see if there are specific 

14 

15 m not 

16 there 

17 

18 

19 maybe on the Procedures Subcommittee as well, 

20 oral nasal breathing comes to mind and there 

21 is a couple of others. 

22 I don't know if you have any update 

Evaluation Report on this and rework all the 

cases where we have used the gall bladder as 

opposed to the liver. And again, it pro

won't affect all the cases. It will a

surely, it will have a more profound aff

the cases that had plutonium exposures. 

wil

 Did I miss something here? I think 

that concludes my presentation. Thank yo

 CHAIRMAN

questions. Yes, Mark. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Paul, I a

sure if you actually covered this. But 

are some outstanding White Papers that I know 

we have talked about on the Subcommittee and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 155

1 

2 

3 re we 

4 roup 

5 our 

6 So, 

7 ecting what we are doing for dose 

8 rec str

9 

10 

11 t the 

12 ition. 

13 alked 

14 

15 last 

16 p it 

17 

18 

19 ample, SC&A 100% agrees 

20 with it but at least they understand where we 

21 are coming from. At a minimum, we have agreed 

22 to disagree on that issue. 

on where those things stand. 

 DR. NETON: No, I don't. I mean, 

we have actually come to agreement on whe

stand on those as part of the working g

process and we have not changed

fundamental position on either of those.

it is not aff

on uction. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: You have put a 

final position out though on those? 

DR. NETON: We have not put ou

final pos

MEMBER GRIFFON: We have t

through it. 

 DR. NETON: Right. And the 

working group, I forget which working grou

was, we came to at least a mutual 

understanding of our positions on ingestion. 

I am not sure, for ex
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 156

1 

2 

3 ce in 

4 t I do 

5 gree with you that we need to put out a final 

6 -- 

7 es, I think you 

8 com tte

9 

10 

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: All right. Just 

12 those two Jim? I can't remember if there were 

13 

14 was a few 

15 oth --

16 

17 

18 

19 wil rep

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Can you add on 

21 that? Yes, thank you. 

22 DR. NETON: I apologize, yes. 

And so what we are doing is we are 

going to continue doing as we have in the 

past. So, it doesn't make any differen

how we are doing dose reconstructions bu

a

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Y

mi d to putting it in writing. 

 DR. NETON: -- position to close 

that one. I agree with you. 

other -

DR. NETON: No, there 

er 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: A few others.

 DR. NETON: -- sort of odds and 

ends out there. And I need to, next time I 

l ort on those. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 157

1 

2 

3 tumors is, I guess, is 

4 dif ren

5 ary tract? 

6 

7 N: You mean the 

8 

9 

10 

11 itself 

12 f the 

13 king, 

14 ere is 

15 ucts, which are 155.1 and then 

16 there is also the intrahepatic ducts, which is 

17 a different code. 

18 

19 R. NETON: The intrahepatic ducts 

20 is -- you are talking about the connection 

21 between the bladder and liver? That is a 

22 different code. 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Lockey? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: The ICD code for 

biliary tract 

fe t. Right? 

DR. NETON: Bili

 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes. 

 DR. NETO

intrahepatic duct tumors? 

 MEMBER LOCKEY: No, actually 

involving the biliary tract itself. 

 DR. NETON: Well the liver 

is 155. I mean, that is the cancer o

liver itself which is, in my view of thin

the hepatic tissue, the hepatocytes. Th

intrahepatic d

 MEMBER LOCKEY: Right. 

 D
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 158

1 

2 code. Okay. 

3 

4 

5 : And that we would not 

6 use his

7 

8 AN ZIEMER: Okay. Other 

9 questions, comments? 

10 

11 member 

12 of 

13 think 

14 idated 

15 and I 

16 mputer 

17 

18 

19 hat, 

20 from the original IREP to what we call NIOSH21 IREP that there would be something outside of 

22 the original validation or is it your 

MEMBER LOCKEY: That is a different 

DR. NETON: Yes. 

MEMBER LOCKEY: Thank you. 

 DR. NETON

 t approach for. 

MEMBER LOCKEY: Sorry. 

 CHAIRM

 Jim, at I don't know a couple of 

meetings ago, we had, I think it was a 

of the public that raised the issue

validation of the IREP code. And then I 

you told us that it had been val

originally. But we have NIOSH-IREP 

don't know enough about validation of co

codes to even ask the question right but it is 

sort of along the lines is are we assured that 

in the transformation, if I can call it t
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 159

1 

2 

3 

4 cation 

5 ly the 

6 being 

7 with the way the source 

8 cod sho

9 

10 itself or if the equations themselves are not 

11 

12 are 

13 some 

14 tself, 

15 idated in our opinion 

16 y N w in 

17 

18 

19 those 

20 changes that we made were vetted through 

21 subject matter expert reviews and they are 

22 posted on our website. I forget how many 

understanding that this verification process 

would indeed pick up any such glitch, if I can 

call it that. 

 DR. NETON: The verifi

process would not. I mean, that is pure

mechanics of the calculations. Are they 

done in accordance 

e uld be written? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But if the code 

right, then it is a separate question. 

 DR. NETON: Right. And you

correct to point out that there are

differences between the IREP code i

which was originally val

b the ational Academy of Sciences Revie

the NIOSH-IREP model itself. 

 I will say that before we 

implemented the NIOSH-IREP model, any of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 160

1 

2 

3 mment, but subject matter expert 

4 

5 : And these 

6 

7 DR. NETON: Yes, right. 

8 Def ite

9 

10 

11 

12 Dose 

13 d to 

14 about 

15 uction 

16 ad an 

17 

18 

19 g 40. 

20 And then at the last meeting, this Board 

21 approved a summary or wrap-up report of those 

22 first 100 cases. Incidentally, that report 

expert reviews we got but the models 

themselves were put out for public comment or 

not public co

review comments. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER

included folks external to OCAS? 

 

in ly. 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 Any other comments, questions? 

Okay, thank you very much. 

 The Subcommittee on 

Reconstruction and the Board have reporte

the Secretary on a number of occasions 

the outcomes of the Dose Reconstr

Audits, if we can call them that. We h

initial report on the first 20 cases and then 

I think a report on the next 40. And then I 

believe a third report on the followin
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 161

1 

2 

3 g the 

4 final 

5 o the 

6 week. So that is 

7 rea to

8 re a 

9 

10 

11 and 

12 ng to 

13 Dose 

14 ctions 

15 ases. 

16 dose 

17 

18 100 audit reviews done by the Board and the 

19 de on 

20 the way dose reconstructions are conducted. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, thank you, 

22 Dr. Ziemer, and thank you, Board members, for 

which was approved has been undergoing a 

number of edits, which are edits that are more 

along the lines of formatting, not editin

technical content. And I believe the 

version has, I think, Mark has agreed t

final version even this

dy go to the Secretary. 

 But in any event, there we

number of issues that arose through those 

audits. There were a number of findings. 

There were discussions between the Board 

SC&A and NIOSH. And Stu Hinnefeld is goi

give us a report now on the 

Reconstruction Program and the OCAS a

relating to the review of the first 100 c

Keep in mind, these are not the first 100

reconstructions done by NIOSH but the first 

impact, in essence, that those have ma
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 162

1 

2 

3 So I 

4 s was 

5 guy, 

6 know, 

7 nd of like pulling the Band-Aid off, sort 

8 f.

9 

10 

11 determination. We tried to talk him out of 

12 

13 EFELD: Whoever feels that 

14 way, I don't care. You know, I have been 

15 

16 rovide 

17 

18 

19 rious 

20 process. It is really detailed, the Board's 

21 technical support contractor, is a really 

22 detailed group of people. And so we have 

the opportunity here today. I notice on the 

agenda that I have consecutive presentations 

without the benefit of lunch in between. 

am assuming the Board's thought proces

well, if we have got to listen to this

let's just get it over with quick. You 

ki

o 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It is the 

Designated Federal Official who makes that 

it. 

 MR. HINN

doing this a long time. 

 I think it is worthwhile to p

a little bit of information here because this 

has been, a dose reconstruction review from my 

standpoint, is a particularly labo
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 163

1 

2 

3 gone 

4 ue to 

5 rough 

6 t be 

7 we 

8 the 

9 

10 

11 e not just sitting 

12 

13 

14 or 

15 the 

16 ummary 

17 

18 

19 

20 about what has been done or is being done in 

21 response to those summary findings. 

22 So essentially, I am going to 

quite a lot of information provided in these, 

and there has been an evolution of how dose 

reconstructions are prepared, as we have

through this process, in large part d

this feedback that has been received th

this process. And so I think it migh

worthwhile for us to say that yes,

understand the comments, a lot of

comments. So we are serious about trying to 

provide a product that is satisfactory to the 

affected parties and we ar

here not doing anything. You know, we are in 

fact making revisions as we go. 

 So I have structured this f

brevity along the lines of speaking to

Summary Findings or the S

Recommendations, I forget now exactly which 

they are called, in the report, and providing 

some sort of indication to the Advisory Board 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 164

1 

2 

3 what 

4 se to 

5 this 

6 rtain 

7 has 

8 discuss this 

9 topic, probably at considerable length. 

10 

11 need 

12 n to allow for a more complete 

13 audit and better explanation of information to 

14 

15 parts. 

16 on to 

17 

18 

19 that 

20 the audit process can be done maybe more 

21 efficiently. And in fact, just in general the 

22 file contains more specific information then 

recount the Summary Findings or Summary 

Recommendations from the Report and then 

provide some sort of action, you know,

has gone on or what is going on in respon

those. And then after the presentation,

is going to be fairly brief, I will ente

whatever questions or comments anyone

beyond that. Because we could 

 The first finding in the summary 

was Dose Reconstruction Final Reports

modificatio

the claimant. 

 And that is kind of like two 

 One is better explanation of informati

the claimant. And then the second is to make 

it more clear what, you know, technically what 

was done in the dose reconstruction so
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 165

1 

2 

3 need 

4 audit, 

5 hnical 

6 o speaks to the better 

7 xp at

8 our 

9 

10 

11 mplify 

12 right 

13 of a 

14 t in 

15 laimant what we 

16 have done and we also try to convey the 

17 

18 

19 y to 

20 explain something to the claimant and also 

21 provide the actual technical approach because 

22 the technical approach is really a kind of 

about how the decision was reached. 

 Our response here really speaks to 

the first part of this, which is we

modification to allow a more complete 

which is to provide a more complete tec

story. And also, it als

e lan ion to the claimant. 

 For quite some time now,

contractor and we have worked on a new kind of 

changing the format of the dose reconstruction 

to do a couple of tings. One is to si

the discussion to the claimant because 

now a Dose reconstruction Report is sort

mingled description, a mingled accoun

which we try to convey to the c

technical aspect of how it was done. 

 And it is very hard in one section 

to accomplish both those tasks, to tr
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 166

1 

2 simple explanation. 

3 worked 

4 ss as 

5 It is 

6 e are 

7 e can 

8 is we 

9 

10 

11 structors and 

12 CA ev we 

13 

14 ified 

15 lly an 

16 ss in 

17 

18 

19 claimant as is currently explained. All those 

20 details will be there but they will not be 

21 explained in the same fashion. 

22 So we think that it will be a 

specialized field that defies, in some cases, 

 And so that format we have 

on with our contractor kind of hit or mi

resources are available for a while. 

moving along quite well now. I think w

getting close to having something that w

work out and proceed with. Part of this

want to make sure we have a broad consensus in 

what this needs to look like. And on the 

slide, I say among dose recon

O S r iewers but there are other people

want to have the consensus from, too. 

 For instance, this simpl

explanation to the claimant, is this rea

improvement? Because there will be le

there. It will not explain as many details in 

the section that is essentially aimed at the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 167

1 

2 

3 all of the 

4 technical stuff kind of gets in the way. 

5 ll be 

6 l or 

7 d of 

8 n the 

9 

10 were made and what decisions were made in how 

11 

12 ms of 

13 more 

14 done 

15 at to 

16 clear 

17 

18 

19 have 

20 received from this. But so it is kind of, we 

21 have not like done nothing along this, while 

22 we waited for the new format. We have done 

better read for the claimant and actually give 

them a better understanding of what was done 

than what is currently done because

 The technical information wi

provided in a separate file, probably Exce

something like that which will kin

describe to people who are conversant i

technical aspects of the program what choices 

the dose reconstructions were done. 

 Now along this line, in ter

making a dose reconstruction 

understandable to the claimant. We have

a number of things with the existing form

try to emphasize that we are being more 

in our report of what was done. And that has 

developed over time. It has been evolution in 

large part due to the feedback we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 168

1 

2 

3 is the 

4 new format of the Dose reconstruction Report. 

5 files 

6 dose 

7 ernal 

8 dose 

9 

10 

11 ions 

12 rify 

13 hnical 

14 en a 

15 o use 

16 says 

17 

18 

19 staff 

20 meeting. And so the contractor determines 

21 this is what this means. In this situation 

22 this is how that technical document is to be 

some things in terms of existing format and 

what the words are put in there. But the real 

change that we are really shooting for

 The next finding is the case 

which include the supporting data for the

reconstruction should include the int

guides or instructions used by the 

reconstructors and should include supporting 

data analysis. Now these internal guides and 

instructions are, essentially instruct

issued to dose reconstructors were to cla

or further expound on the tec

documentation. You know, maybe wh

procedure is written, when someone goes t

it, they may encounter a situation that

this procedure doesn't entirely explain what 

to do in this situation. And this may be 

brought up say in the contractor 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 169

1 

2 

3 tion. 

4 r a 

5 ent utilization of the technical 

6 

7 those 

8 ntrol 

9 

10 

11 now 

12 d of 

13 that are current, that are 

14 currently applicable in a dose reconstruction 

15 

16 That 

17 

18 

19 ough final adjudication before they come 

20 up, it will be awhile before the Subcommittee 

21 sees anything like that but we have begun to 

22 do that. 

interpreted. And that instruction is then 

provided to the dose reconstructors in 

something called a guide or an instruc

And so they are available to make fo

consist

document. 

 No those were not, 

instructions have not been considered co

documents and therefore were not readily 

available to be utilized and as a part of the 

response to this recommendation, we are

having the contractor include any kin

instructions 

supporting file. 

 So those are being added now.

was just started this year and so since dose 

reconstruction cases that get reviewed have to 

go thr
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 170

1 

2 

3 there 

4 the 

5 the 

6 d in 

7 this 

8 dose 

9 

10 

11 other 

12 y so 

13 d say 

14 dose 

15 really 

16 And 

17 

18 

19 say I told you this information and you didn't 

20 even pay any attention to me. Why did you 

21 bother to interview me? 

22 So in response to that, going in 

The next finding was actually three 

parts. It had to do with the interview, the 

claimant interview process. Part A was 

were questions about the adequacy of

interview. Part B is questions about

consideration of the information provide

the interview. In other words, was 

information fully considered in the 

reconstruction and the Part C then is 

explanation in the dose reconstruction of how 

the information was considered. In 

words, did it explain that? And rightfull

because there were times when people woul

things in an interview that the 

reconstructor would conclude that this 

doesn't affect this dose reconstruction.

so the dose reconstruction said nothing about 

it. And rightfully so, the claimants would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 171

1 

2 

3 ve it 

4 g and 

5 ended 

6 the 

7 CATI 

8 ure and so it became part of that 

9 effort. 

10 

11 e in 

12 ct in 

13 Dose 

14 n was 

15 ertain 

16 oesn't 

17 

18 

19 

20 So, I think in every case we 

21 already explained that. It doesn't improve 

22 the dose reconstruction that was sent to the 

the same order, the Procedures Subcommittee 

has taken on the task of the interview, 

looking at the CATI interview and I belie

is going to report on it at this meetin

the progress that has been made. That 

up in Procedures Subcommittee because 

Procedures Subcommittee reviewed the 

proced

 For Part B, the consideration of 

information, to the best of my knowledg

each case we have explained after the fa

the debate, in the discussion of the 

reconstruction Report, how the informatio

considered or the fact that c

information that is provided really d

affect the dose reconstruction. You know, it 

would have been done this way whether they had 

said that or not. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 172

1 

2 to the claimant. 

3 C, we 

4 , we 

5 ation 

6 at if 

7 ium, 

8 Dose 

9 

10 

11 osed to beryllium but that 

12 

13 

14 that 

15 nd so 

16 uction 

17 

18 

19 r the 

20 last couple, three, four years. This was 

21 adopted briefly in 2005 under pressure in the 

22 Program Office to complete claims as quickly 

claimant in that case, which didn't explain it 

 So, as part of that, number 

now, in our Dose reconstruction Reports

make a point of addressing the inform

that is provided in the interview so th

they say I was also exposed to beryll

which is not radioactive, in the 

Reconstruction Report we will now acknowledge 

that the claimant interviewed in the case, 

said they were exp

doesn't affect the dose reconstruction because 

it is not radioactive. 

 This next finding is one 

occurred for about a month back in 2005 a

we are estimating dose reconstr

methodology for compensable claims, which we 

generally don't do. In response, I think this 

is the response I have given for this fo
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 173

1 

2 

3 at is 

4 . We 

5 nd if 

6 with, 

7 get 

8 So 

9 

10 

11 that 

12 n the 

13 there 

14 to be 

15 time 

16 work 

17 

18 

19 accelerated methods anyway inappropriately for 

20 -- it shouldn't have been used for claims from 

21 that site and it was used anyway. 

22 And the second issue was that we 

as possible. And the decision was let's just, 

if we have a way to do these dose 

reconstructions, let's just say okay, th

the best we can do. The research is done

are going to apply these more broadly a

this is the best model we can come up 

that is the one we have, and people

compensated, then they get compensated.

that was the thought process behind making 

that decision. 

 Now, once we started down 

road, a couple of things kind of got i

way. One was that there were not -- 

were a lot of claims that were waiting 

done that had been waiting for a long

that really, because of the nature of the

that was done at the site, we really didn't 

have a method for but we used some of those 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 174

1 

2 

3 at we 

4 nd so 

5 would 

6 And 

7 this 

8 n't done that. We 

9 hadn't really completed those. 

10 

11 own 

12 t did 

13 he dose 

14 reconstructions that ultimately didn't appear 

15 ee. 

16 best 

17 

18 professional judgment and consistency were 

19 verall 

20 outcome of the case. 

21 And there is a time when there is 

22 some judgment to be made about what the record 

couldn't really in good conscience say that we 

had completed research at all of those sites 

because there were a number of sites th

had already researched to some extent. A

we kind of had a standard for what we 

expect to do in order to research a site.

for the sites that we were applying 

method to, we really had

 So, we did this practice for about 

a month or two and then we stopped at our

accord, largely for these reasons tha

come up during the review of t

before the Dose Reconstruction Subcommitt

 And the next finding is in 

estimate cases, several findings related to 

made which may have impacted the o
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 175

1 

2 

3 From 

4 e the 

5 ctor, 

6 OCAS 

7 three 

8 that 

9 

10 

11 comfort for having these kinds of decisions 

12 

13 es of 

14 ewed 

15 ve we 

16 gment 

17 

18 

19 have explained it and have been fairly 

20 consistent, if I am not mistaken in how the 

21 judgments were made. 

22 And I would like to offer better, 

in front of you is telling you. And sometimes 

and I believe these are professionally 

characterized as professional judgments. 

our standpoint, we feel like we hav

professional judgment, the dose reconstru

and the peer reviewer and then the

reviewer all coming to bear. So we have 

individuals who must essentially concur 

the professional judgment has been made 

correctly and then gives us some level of 

made. 

 I think in the specific cas

the dose reconstructions that were revi

and commented on in this fashion, I belie

have explained our professional jud

satisfactorily, as far as I know, in each 

case. And so there are -- so I believe we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 176

1 

2 

3 I n't

4 e. I 

5 Now 

6 discussion so 

7 may I 

8 f the 

9 

10 

11 ecause 

12 g and 

13 hen a 

14 gone 

15 round 

16 then 

17 

18 

19 continual cause of confusion to the 

20 recipients. Are we including that in the 

21 explanations now as you are revising that? 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

you know, I would like to able to say that we 

will never use a professional judgment again. 

do think I can say that. 

 Okay, that was my final slid

think it was the final recommendation.

this may have prompted a bit of

be will just call it quits here. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Stu, one o

problems we hear about a lot when we have 

public comments is the idea that when dose 

reconstructions are redone, perhaps b

there is a second cancer or somethin

people look at the original report and t

new report and they see that the PoC has

down and often this is due to the first 

being due to a maximizing procedure and 

the next round is more of a best estimate and 

we understand that. It seems to be a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 177

1 

2 addressed? 

3 d you 

4 forgot 

5 some 

6 ening. 

7 resee 

8 mating 

9 

10 

11 out of the way in some sort of a timely 

12 

13 se an 

14 at a 

15 mber, 

16 cess, 

17 

18 

19 e and 

20 may be diagnosed with an additional cancer. 

21 There may be a correction to the employment 

22 that adds more employment. Any number of 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is that being 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I am gla

reminded me of that. It is something I 

to mention. That problem does occur with 

frequency. It is a fairly common happ

It is an outcome that we really didn't fo

of using efficiency methods, overesti

efficiency methods, which we used in order to 

try to get some of this huge backlog of claims 

fashion. 

 And the fact is that if we u

overestimating approach and we arrive 

particular Probability of Causation nu

and that goes all the way through the pro

and then something about the facts of that 

case change. For instance, the claimant may 

be, the Energy employee may still be aliv
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 178

1 

2 

3 case back to us to do a new 

4 dos rec

5 hings 

6 that 

7 nsate 

8 h an 

9 

10 

11 imate 

12 do a 

13 the 

14 en in 

15 ng in the additional cancer is actually 

16 lower than the original Dose reconstruction 

17 

18 

19 dose 

20 reconstruction for an overestimating report, 

21 there is a statement in there that this is an 

22 overestimating report, you know, a dose 

things can happen. Those are the main ones. 

And that would then, the Department of Labor 

then refers that 

e onstruction. 

 At this point, a couple of t

could have happened. It could be that

overestimating approach would now compe

them, which we don't want to do wit

efficiency overestimating anymore or it could 

be that in the interim we have, whereas we 

didn't have a refined or best est

approach before, now we do. And so we

best or better estimate approach and

Probability of Causation number then, ev

throwi

Report. 

 Now to help try to explain that, we 

now include in the language of a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 179

1 

2 

3 would 

4 go down, the 

5 Pro bil

6 iginal 

7 en we 

8 re it 

9 

10 

11 en a 

12 is a 

13 hat. 

14 ethod 

15 ater. 

16 n the 

17 

18 now. And to kind of also explain why this one 

19 n't just go up automatically with the 

20 addition of the second cancer. 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you very 

22 much. 

reconstruction for efficiency purposes and if 

the facts of the case would change, meaning 

the facts as we know them in the case 

change, this number may well 

ba ity of Causation may go down. 

 And so that is in the or

statement. Now, if I am not mistaken, wh

do a rework in a situation like this whe

goes down, if I am not -- in fact, I think 

this is the case for any rework, I guess. 

Somebody can hit me if I am wrong. Wh

rework dose reconstruction is done, there

summary of if there is a change like t

You know, in other words, we used one m

before. We are using another method l

There is a summary of what was done i

first one and what is being done differently 

does
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 180

1 for 

2 reminding me of that. 

3 e the 

4 that, 

5 onal work, 

6 it has got to shoot the number up further. 

7 is is 

8 hat I 

9 

10 

11 sn't it 

12 time to change that, to something like a whole 

13 now. 

14 tand. 

15 k to 

16 more 

17 

18 chastising me about it if we did that. IREP 

19 y it 

20 over. 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I know what 

22 IREP does and IREP is not the boss. We are. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Thanks 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, becaus

expectation of many of the workers is 

with an additional cancer or additi

 Now the other thing and th

sort of connected to that and you know t

have had this concern for a long time, even if 

it is an overestimate, we are still giving 

them two decimal places on that. I

number? That is almost rhetorical right 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well I unders

 That would be far more palatable I thin

you and me. It certainly would be

palatable to me because you would stop 

prints it out that way and so we conve
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 181

1 

2 

3 in a while. I have never seen 

4 

5 

6 that is why 

7 you get the big bucks or the small bucks. 

8 Well, it is a continual irritant to 

9 me. 

10 

11 clarification. We don't provide that number 

12 to e c

13 

14 t out 

15 ent of Labor has adopted the use. 

16 w but 

17 

18 

19 mean, 

20 we do not provide that number to the claimant. 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, I said, it is 

22 a rhetorical question. I just like to have it 

So, -- you are. Larry is. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Some people say 

that to me once 

any evidence of it. 

(Laughter.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, 

 DR. NETON: Well, just a point of 

th laimants at all. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I know. 

DR. NETON: And IREP prints i

and Departm

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I kno

Jeff is here. 

DR. NETON: I understand but to 

take a little of the onus off of us, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 182

1 

2 maybe somebody will do something about it. 

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Maybe we can round 

4 up.

5 fine 

6 . But 

7 you know, it implies way more than it should. 

8 HINNEFELD: Yes, understood. 

9 It certainly does. 

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: And to bring that, 

11 I have just gone through the paperwork here, 

12 

13 sure 

14 site 

15 you 

16 on. And I understand, 

17 that one would round to 50 if we were 

18 reporting to a whole number. 

19 think 

20 that claimants -- 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Do we really know it 

22 that well, is what you were saying. And that 

be heard. You know, in the distant future 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I am

with rounding, just use rounding rules

 MR. 

 

49.79 -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm pretty

that was a dose model, meaning it is a

where we have a model that describes how

do the dose reconstructi

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, I just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 183

1 

2 at all. Do we really know it that well? 

3 ade. 

4 pen the floor to others to discuss. 

5 Yes Bra

6 have 

7 as we 

8 stuff 

9 

10 

11 I saw 

12 this 

13 esn't 

14 hat 

15 e are 

16 dose 

17 

18 

19 maybe 

20 in this one, it was compensable but are we 

21 learning from the mistakes that we made in 

22 that and putting them towards the other one, 

is what Paul is saying, why use decimal points 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, point m

 Let's o

, d? 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: Stu, when we

been going through these, many times 

review some of these in our reviews and 

like that, we have found issues, and we have 

gone through it and you may have spoke to this 

earlier, but part of the problem that 

was that we were making the comment, well

was compensated anyway, so it really do

matter. But what I want to make sure is t

we are taking that information, that w

learning from reviewing these 

reconstructions and making sure that they get 

to the other ones that are coming up. And I 

spoke to you about this before because 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 184

1 

2 

3 hings. 

4 at we 

5 ably 

6 this 

7 d you 

8 ance, 

9 

10 

11 than I do. 

12 You would generally try to determine why did 

13 

14 that 

15 going 

16 terms 

17 

18 

19 esn't 

20 matter. We don't really do that finding-by21 finding on this. It would be if we want to 

22 talk about that, I would almost like to 

so that we don't make that same mistake? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, certainly we 

are learning from these and doing some t

 Now, are we -- can I tell you today th

comprehensively do that? And that is prob

not being done, that there is 

comprehensive analysis of a finding. An

know, the way you would do if, for inst

you had a QA non-conformance report, for 

instance, to try to talk a language that you 

probably know a lot more about it

that happen and let's go fix it. Right? 

 Or you might say, okay, yes,

one is not quite right but we are just 

to accept as is. That is one of the 

they use is, accept as is. And we re not 

going to worry about trying to fix it because 

it is such a thing that it just do
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 185

1 

2 

3 this. 

4 so is 

5 dose 

6 have 

7 mean, 

8 etail 

9 

10 

11 ndred 

12 those 

13 was 

14 othing 

15 And 

16 that 

17 

18 

19 you are right, it shouldn't have been done 

20 that way. There are some that are clear in 

21 that way. 

22 And there are some that are kind of 

propose that maybe the Subcommittee take that 

up as a topic for how do we want to address 

 And part of this discussion al

what is the expectation for what a 

reconstruction should be? Because I 

talked about summary findings here. I 

if you want to go down to a greater d

about finding-by-finding of the discussion of 

finding-by-finding, I think there were a lot 

of findings written about the first hu

dose reconstructions that I would say 

weren't deficiencies. You know, it

commented on but there is really n

deficient about this dose reconstruction.

then there is sort of a, there are some

clearly are, when you read the finding and you 

look at the dose reconstruction and say, oops, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 186

1 

2 

3 y call 

4 e kind 

5 hich 

6 necessarily go through in our 

7 dis ssi

8 r the 

9 

10 

11 ommon 

12 ieve 

13 ther 

14 how good, what are the 

15 requirements. How good does it have to be? 

16 f. 

17 

18 

19 Mark 

20 wants to speak to this but I think the 

21 Subcommittee has done a good job of 

22 distinguishing between those items which are 

in this broader middle category that well, you 

know, that maybe could have been done better 

but I don't know that I would necessaril

that wrong. You know, so there are thes

of broad categories that these fall into w

we don't

cu on. 

 So it might be something fo

Subcommittee to take up would be those kinds 

of questions. And we may want to start with 

trying to have some sort of c

understanding of what are we trying to ach

in a Dose reconstruction Report? In o

words, sort of

That kind of stuf

MEMBER CLAWSON: I understand that 

and I appreciate it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well maybe
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 187

1 

2 

3 rea imp

4 f the 

5 have 

6 that 

7 t way 

8 have any 

9 impact going forward. But let Mark comment. 

10 

11 ese a 

12 ation. 

13 ok at 

14 ad of 

15 mean, 

16 we go 

17 

18 

19 call 

20 them program rankings. And you know, I think 

21 Stu is accurate in that many of the findings, 

22 actually, many of the findings, we see, you 

sort of yes, that maybe was not exactly the 

right way to do it, versus those that have a 

l act on an ongoing basis. 

 In fact, and clearly some o

methodologies have changed anyway and we

findings that, although they affected 

particular case, they don't do it tha

anymore in any event. So, it doesn't 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, yes, I 

think, you know, we have discussed th

little back but I take Stu's recommend

I mean, I think we should probably lo

these as a full Subcommittee topic inste

just as they sort of come up. But I 

one, you know, part of the reason, what 

through in this Subcommittee and in our 

reports is to have case findings and rankings 

and then sort of this broader, I think we
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 188

1 

2 

3 going 

4 same 

5 ding. 

6 of total deficiencies might 

7 

8 other 

9 

10 

11 of, you know, make 

12 us wonder or question the overall Quality 

13 

14 rrors, 

15 a big 

16 you 

17 

18 happened ten times or something like that. 

19 peer 

20 review process? 

21 These questions have been brought 

22 up but I don't think we have formally put it 

know, we do six, seven, eight, nine cases, all 

from Savannah River, so you see the finding 

repeated. And of course, yes, that is 

to come up because it was using the 

spreadsheet; it is just a redundant fin

So that number 

look a bit inflated. 

 But then we do find 

categories, and these are the ones that I 

think are important for us in looking at the 

overall program, that sort 

Assurance Program, for instance. 

 So if you see a number of e

yes, it was minor and it didn't make 

deal with this particular case. But when

put them as a group, you say, gee, this has 

Wouldn't that have been caught by the
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 189

1 

2 

3 thi it

4 be a 

5 as a 

6 aven't 

7 ld be 

8 ome of those overall topics 

9 and what does it mean. 

10 

11 

12 you 

13 e. 

14 y, I 

15 rstand that. 

16 be on 

17 

18 

19 Advisory Board on Radiation Worker Health. Is 

20 that who you are trying to reach? 

21 (No response.) 

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, in any 

on an agenda. And I think -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I would almost 

nk would be worthy of -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: That would 

good idea, yes. It sort of comes up 

sidebar conversation sometimes but we h

really looked at that so I think it wou

useful to look at s

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is somebody on 

the phone? 

PARTICIPANT: Hello. I am,

know, on the conferenc

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I'm sorr

couldn't unde

MR. HINNEFELD: They want to 

the conference. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, this is the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 190

1 

2 

3 n there next -- one of our next 

4 mee ngs

5 

6 this 

7 ctives 

8 f the 

9 

10 

11 municate it effectively, 

12 

13 

14 

15 the 

16 s Stu 

17 

18 

19 am, I 

20 would say no, it doesn't have anything to do 

21 with the quality of the product that we are 

22 talking about because the quality as we define 

event, good point, Mark and Stu. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: We will try to put 

that o

ti . 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Larry? 

 MR. ELLIOTT: I would welcome

because I think we have different perspe

here on what our acceptance -- quality o

product is. And we would say to you and the 

claimants that we are trying hard to get the 

right decision and com

communicate how we have done to arrive at the 

reasonable dose estimates. 

 And that's certainly, I think, 

different than what I see coming out of

reviews of the Subcommittee. Because a

said, many of the deficiencies that are 

identified that you would say this speaks to 

your lack of a Quality Assurance Progr
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 191

1 

2 communicated. 

3 of a 

4 ter 

5 review 

6 help, 

7 an understanding from our 

8 per ect

9 

10 

11 atched 

12 I am 

13 t of these, but there 

14 were some errors that were clearly errors and 

15 it t t

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I think it is 

21 problematic because a list of deficiencies 

22 sets an expectation with a stakeholder 

it is the right decision effectively 

 So I would welcome this kind

discussion because I think we need to bet

understand where the Board's 

perspective is coming from and it would 

I think to give

sp ive as well. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: And I don't want 

to mischaracterize it but I know there are 

several that you know, we kind of scr

our heads and said there is no way. And

not saying there is a lo

go hrough three people. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Sure. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: So I think we 

should. But how often did it happen, you 

know, and that is just, you know - 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 192

1 

2 

3 at we 

4 tively 

5 e can 

6 these 

7 go to 

8 that 

9 

10 

11 ve a 

12 some 

13 say. 

14 might 

15 person 

16 And 

17 

18 

19 quality questions. So, I will just leave it 

20 at that. I don't think we can go further 

21 here. 

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think the 100-

community that something is awry, something is 

wrong. And we would say, not in all cases. 

We still produced the quality product th

were seeking. We may not have effec

communicated how we arrived at that and w

do better in that regard but, you know, 

litany of deficiencies that really don't 

a change in the compensation decision, 

doesn't help us. It doesn't help the 

claimant. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: We may ha

little bit of a disagreement. We have

more ground to discuss on that, I would 

Because also if you do have these what 

be small deficiencies and then a 

develops another cancer and comes back.

you know, all of a sudden these -- you know, 

it does question the -- I think there are some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 193

1 

2 

3 out 

4 were 

5 think 

6 e may 

7 things 

8 things 

9 

10 

11 I think we are aware of what the end product 

12 

13 t to 

14 that 

15 only 

16 steps 

17 

18 

19 ough we don't 

20 go about it the right way. That is not what 

21 Larry is saying and we don't want that 

22 impression to become prevalent either. 

case report tried to distinguish between those 

kind of defects that really have no impact on 

the end product. And, in fact, pointed

that in most cases, the decisions 

nevertheless the right decisions. So, I

that has been made pretty clear that ther

have been some questions on certain 

along the way or maybe questions on how 

were communicated or better communication. A 

lot of it had to do with that, even. But yes, 

needs to be. 

 And at the same time, we wan

make sure that the stakeholders believe

high quality covers everything not 

including the final decision but all the 

to get there as well. I don't want to -- I 

will use the extreme and say well, we always 

make the right decision, even th
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 194

1 

2 

3 be ady

4 till 

5 have to help myself to water 

6 per dic

7 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I just don't speak 

9 very much. 

10 

11 

12 ow me 

13 

14 dy to 

15 SEC 

16 n Company. That is an 

17 83.14 and Stu will present the NIOSH 

18 

19 be a 

20 petitioner on the line for this. My 

21 understanding is that the petitioner may be 

22 present and may listen but will probably just 

Well, Stu, have we talked long 

enough here for you to catch your breath and 

re for the next round? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I'm s

going to 

io ally. 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Well, we 

are -- 

MR. HINNEFELD: People who kn

know that is true. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We are rea

go on to the next topic, which is the

petition for the Norto

Evaluation Report on that. 

 We do not think there will 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 195

1 

2 

3 ecause of personal 

4 rea ns.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Thank you, 

6 Dr. iem

7 n our 

8 And as 

9 

10 

11 tions 

12 dose 

13 easible and then we 

14 essentially we solicit a petition from one of 

15 

16 story 

17 

18 

19 d we 

20 sent that letter. We also sent a form, I 

21 believe it is a Form A Petition, which they 

22 merely have to sign and send back. We 

call after the meeting for an update. I 

believe that petitioner may not be able to be 

here today in any event b

so I'll leave it at that. 

 

 Z er. 

 Today I will be reporting o

SEC evaluation for the Norton Company. 

you said, this is an 83.14 SEC petition. That 

is the one where we find that we can't find 

enough information to do dose reconstruc

and we conclude on our own that 

reconstructions aren't f

the claimants from that site. 

 Just to provide a little hi

here, in May we informed the Norton Company 

claimant that we were unable to find enough 

information to do dose reconstruction an
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 196

1 

2 

3 issued the Evaluation 

4 

5 Atomic 

6 rough 

7 tory 

8 nium, 

9 

10 

11 EC t amic 

12 

13 some 

14 d of 

15 y to 

16 e crucible shapes for utilization 

17 probably in further uranium manufacture, I 

18 

19 riod, 

20 1945 to 1957 and that is what we have 

21 concluded is infeasible. We can't do dose 

22 reconstruction. There is a residual period 

received that petition back later on in May 

and promptly qualified the petition for 

evaluation and then 

Report earlier this month. 

 Norton Company was an 

Weapons Employer from January 1, 1945 th

December 31, 1957, manufacturing refrac

products from boron, beryllium, ura

thorium and magnesium oxide. They were 

mainly, at least the part of the operation the 

A u ilized were they were a cer

manufacturing capability. 

 And the AEC sent them 

radioactive material and some other kin

bad stuff, beryllium, et cetera, to tr

make thes

would guess. 

 This is the operational pe
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 197

1 

2 

3 port, 

4 vised 

5 port 

6 the 

7 know 

8 t date or not, 

9 the end date of the residual period. 

10 

11 ressing the operational period. We haven't 

12 reached a conclusion about the residual period 

13 

14 bably 

15 there were 

16 th 

17 

18 

19 data 

20 search that we did in trying to find 

21 information that would help us do dose 

22 reconstructions. Of course, we had used our 

for this site that runs, at last publication 

of the Residual Contamination Report, ran 

through the publication data of that re

which was 2006. Now there is a re

portion of the Residual Contamination Re

that is making its way through 

organization for publication and I don't

today whether that changes tha

 But for this petition, we are only 

add

yet. 

 As of July 6, which was pro

the day I put this slide together, 

 15 claims from the Norton Company wi

employment during this operational period. 

 Our sources of available 

information, this kind of describes the
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 198

1 

2 

3 f materials in the kinds of way this 

4 sit did

5 earch 

6 cause 

7 f the 

8 m all 

9 

10 information from DOE Legacy Management. We 

11 

12 is a 

13 ed in 

14 them. 

15 nt of 

16 bably 

17 

18 

19 record 

20 repositories and then other places: Oak Ridge 

21 National Laboratory, U.S. Transuranium and 

22 Uranium Registries, the OSTI database, we did 

existing technical documents. None of those 

really are applicable to a site that did the 

kinds o

e . 

 We looked at our Site Res

Database, which is kind of redundant be

that is just the compendium of all o

information we have managed to gather fro

of our searches. For data captures, we got 

searched the NRC ADAMS database. 

 The successor firm to Norton

company called Saint-Gobain, still locat

Worcester, Massachusetts. We contacted 

We contacted the Massachusetts Departme

Health whose regulator today but pro

would not have been much regulation back in 

this period. A couple of NARA, National 

Archives and Records Administration, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 199

1 

2 

3 is 

4 and, 

5 ress. 

6 find 

7 ith a 

8 n detail 

9 the kind of information that was done there. 

10 

11 that 

12 oesn't 

13 SEC cancers 

14 but there are 15 that fall into this period or 

15 

16 sly. 

17 

18 

19 overestimating efficiency process, using for 

20 compensable claims. So that is how two of 

21 them were done. 

22 And none of the claims that we have 

internet searches, the CEDR database, the 

Hanford DDRS, which is a document database, an 

extensive database. I think it

Declassified Document, something storage 

Retrieval System. National Academies P

Anyway, we looked pretty hard trying to

information and we just didn't come up w

whole heck of a lot that described i

 This little tally of the claims 

from Norton are 20 total, 15 of which

fall into the Class Definition. That d

necessarily mean that they are all 

at least have employment in this period. 

 There were two done previou

Those were compensable and they were done with 

that what I just talked about, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 200

1 

2 

3 people. 

4 that 

5 ducts 

6 this 

7 ibles 

8 anium 

9 

10 

11 orms. 

12 oxide 

13 fused 

14 . I believe that was fused with other 

15 r s lled 

16 

17 

18 

19 mical compounds. Now, 

20 in these processes, Norton Company processed 

21 uranium ores, concentrates and scrap as well 

22 as thorium ores and metals. 

so far have any internal dosimetry or external 

dosimetry information specific to those 

 Now in terms of the work 

Norton did, it manufactured several pro

under contract with the AEC during 

period. For instance, refractory cruc

and rods from beryllium oxide and ur

oxide, various proportions in various shapes. 

Crucibles containing varying amounts of 

thorium, using thorium ore and other f

And then they also used a thorium 

product or produced that called Norton 

oxide

ce amic as well. That is why it was ca

fused. 

 The Norton Company performed 

research and development activities with 

various enrichment che
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 201

1 

2 

3 in 

4 and 

5 arly difficult 

6 

7 imited 

8 al at 

9 

10 

11 about 

12 , how 

13 through-put was there in the year, to 

14 understand really how much went through the 

15 

16 ake a 

17 

18 

19 

20 With respect to the locations of 

21 the covered work, we don't know what that was 

22 either. Some of the information we have would 

So in other words, it did some 

purification of uranium and thorium, which 

then places the progeny chain 

disequilibrium with uranium and thorium 

gives you a particul

reconstruction issue to deal with. 

 And we have very l

documentation about the amount of materi

present at Norton. We have, I think, one or 

two periodic reports of, this is the inventory 

on-hand today without anything to talk 

how much did we receive through the year

much 

place. 

 So we have not been able to m

good judgment about really what quantity of 

radioactive material they had at the site 

during this period for the AEC. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 202

1 

2 

3 fairly 

4 . We 

5 ought 

6 know 

7 w how 

8 y. We 

9 

10 

11 know 

12 ether 

13 were 

14 could 

15 n't know 

16 

17 

18 of 

19 these 

20 materials and you are dealing with oxides and 

21 you are making them into fused shapes, because 

22 that means putting the powder into a mold and 

indicate that this maybe wasn't a terribly 

large and extensive operation. It is a fairly 

large plant and this may have been a 

small operation but we don't really know

don't know where the raw material was br

into or stored, moved around. We don't

how it was moved around. We don't kno

the product was moved around the facilit

don't know how many waste materials that would 

have been generated during the process were 

moved around the facility. And we don't

how people moved around the facility, wh

there was some isolated areas that people

not allowed to go to or whether people 

move freely throughout. We just do

much about movement, either the radioactive 

material or the people around the facility. 

 Internal exposure potential, 

course, when you are dealing with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 203

1 

2 

3 om uranium, 

4 ho m,

5 sure, 

6 from 

7 d so 

8 ternal 

9 

10 

11 ernal 

12 have 

13 ar to 

14 don't 

15 . We 

16 ouple 

17 

18 

19 five 

20 names on it. There is another report that has 

21 like eight names on it. None of those names 

22 are in our claimant database so none of that 

shaping it and heating it, usually that is 

what they did. You have potential for 

inhalation and ingestion fr

t riu and their respective progeny. 

 And for the external expo

there is some photon and beta source 

operations with uranium and thorium an

there would be some potential for ex

exposure as well just from being in proximity 

to these materials. 

 We have not found any ext

monitoring data for people. I think we

maybe four film badge results that appe

be hung up as area dosimeters. They 

seem to have names associated with them

have 13 urine sample results from a c

year period. This is kind of what makes you 

think that maybe this was a fairly small 

operation. There is a report that has
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 204

1 

2 

3 but 

4 our 

5 actually 

6 reconstruct the medical doses to the same. 

7 ms of 

8 icient 

9 

10 

11 exposure to uranium, thorium, and their 

12 

13 have 

14 draw 

15 itude 

16 m and 

17 

18 

19 now, thorium 

20 work, theoretically they could be somewhat 

21 higher but again, we have got no information 

22 to really determine how large they are. 

applies to actual claimants that we have. 

 And we don't really have 

information associated with medical x-rays

we believe that we can use one of 

technical documents and can 

 Our conclusion then, in ter

the feasibility is that we have insuff

data from which to draw conclusions regarding 

the potential magnitude of internal doses from 

progeny of radionuclides. 

 And for external exposures, we

insufficient data from which to 

conclusions regarding the potential magn

of the external exposures from uraniu

thorium work. You know, uranium work, you 

wouldn't expect them to be too high. We just 

don't know what they are. You k
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 205

1 

2 

3 nd if 

4 at is 

5 dose 

6 have 

7 tting 

8 worker 

9 

10 

11 l use 

12 dose 

13 icable 

14 nd we 

15 for a 

16 or a non-SEC cancer. We will 

17 use any information we find that is relevant 

18 

19 y then 

20 for the period of January 1, 1945 through 

21 December 31, 1957, we find that we don't 

22 believe that we can reconstruct internal doses 

We believe that we can reconstruct 

medical dose using the complex-wide technical 

documents that we use in most cases. A

we encounter personal monitoring data th

applicable, we intend to use that in the

reconstructions. We don't think we will

-- we certainly don't see any hope of ge

sufficient data to do some sort of co

model for unmonitored people but if we happen 

to come across any monitoring data, either 

internal or external for people, we wil

it if we have to do a partial 

reconstruction. This would only be appl

if someone is not paid through the SEC a

have to do a partial dose reconstruction 

non-compensable 

to that individual. 

 So, our summary of feasibilit
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 206

1 

2 

3 again, 

4 pplies 

5 5 through '57, which is the operational 

6 period. 

7 dence 

8 that 

9 

10 

11 to 

12 ntly, 

13 been 

14 workers covered by the 

15 evaluation who were employed for a number of 

16 

17 

18 

19 y, a 

20 short period of time that would lead us to 

21 conclude that presence should be sufficient 

22 for inclusion in class. We believe 250 days 

or external doses, other than medical. We do 

believe we can reconstruct medical x-ray doses 

during the operational period. This 

this feasibility -- this determination a

for '4

 Health endangerment. The evi

reviewed in this evaluation indicates

some workers in the Class may have accumulated 

chronic radiation exposures through intakes of 

radionuclides and direct exposure

radioactive materials. And conseque

NIOSH is specifying that health may have

endangered to the 

days aggregating to 250. 

 We did not find any evidence of an 

event that would lead to a large scale, you 

know, very large doses in, essentiall
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 207

1 

2 

3 rton 

4 from 

5 7 for 

6 t 250 

7 this 

8 days 

9 

10 

11 our 

12 cannot 

13 rposes 

14 '57. 

15 asible for us to 

16 reconstruct those doses and there was a 

17 potential for health endangerment. 

18 

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Stu, the 13 

20 uranium urine results, were those positive 

21 results or just urine samples reported being 

22 taken? 

is the potential for harm threshold. 

 So our proposed class for Norton is 

for all AWE employees who worked at No

Company in Worcester, Massachusetts 

January 1, 1945 through December 31, 195

a number of work days aggregating at leas

work days occurring either solely under

employment or in combination with work

within the parameters established for one or 

more other classes of employees in the SEC. 

 And the summary of 

recommendation is that we find that we 

reconstruct doses for compensation pu

during the operational period '45 through

 So we find that it is not fe

 So, that concludes my presentation. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 208

1 

2 

3 ults, 

4 s in 

5 sents 

6 ng. You, know 

7 eig on

8 ng to 

9 

10 

11 particular campaign or the highest exposed 

12 wor rs 

13 -- 

14 e the 

15 any -

16 m were zero, then you don't 

17 have a good basis for even bounding internals 

18 

19 

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And a very short 

21 time period, I gather. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, there are 

MR. HINNEFELD: Those were -- that 

is the sum total of a number of samples that 

were taken. Thinking back on the res

there were quite a number of zero result

those particular samples. It repre

essentially two days of sampli

ht e day and five a year later. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I was tryi

get a feel for if one assumed that there was 

some reason to sample those people, perhaps a 

ke -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- and wer

results positive, and would they provide 

- if most of the

then, it sounds like. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I don't -- 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 209

1 

2 

3 ope tio

4 

5 eel 

6 ey would provide sufficient 

7 nf at

8 be I 

9 

10 

11 n the 

12 firm 

13 rrent 

14 imated 

15 3,000 people 

16 working there at the time. The site is about 

17 

18 

19 the normal incidence of cancer could be a 

20 pretty sizable group. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: It sure could. 

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Other 

so few. They are, like I said, two sampling 

dates, essentially, out of the entire 

ra nal period. 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: We just didn't f

like th

i orm ion. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And may

missed it but what is the actual workforce 

size of that plant? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: It wasn't i

report. We don't really have a good,

number but from conversation with the cu

staff at the successor company, they est

there could have been about

a half mile by one and a half miles. 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So 3,000 people, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 210

1 

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Stu, in the 

3 pro le 

4 ng is 

5 ecause 

6 veryone worked with the material. There 

7 was -- 

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Who is speaking, 

9 please? 

10 

11 fro Wor

12 MR. HINNEFELD: The petitioner. 

13 okay. 

14 

15 f the 

16 rfect 

17 

18 

19 they 

20 put us onto shifts. One shift of 50 would 

21 work 7:00 to 3:00. The other shift would come 

22 in and take the evacuated seat and fill in 

questions, comments on this? Yes. 

 

fi -- 

 MS. CARIGLIA: Well the thi

that this sizeable group tested wrong b

not e

MS. CARIGLIA: Lucrezia Cariglia 

m cester, Massachusetts. 

 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh. Oh, 

Thank you. 

 MS. CARIGLIA: The size o

people, there are only -- for a pe

example, our office housed about 50 of us and 

because there were 100 employees in that 

office, being that the office were small,
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 211

1 

2 that one particular office. 

3 that 

4 the 

5 , et 

6 s own 

7 into 

8 icular 

9 

10 in the other shift. There were eight total 

11 

12 handle 

13 girls 

14 passed 

15 nd she 

16 would 

17 

18 

19 

20 In the meantime, the girl that was 

21 figuring the work would constantly have a pile 

22 of these papers that were so dirty and so 

those same desks, making it 100 employees in 

 Out of 100 employees in 

office, there were four girls that did

actual counting, figuring the prices

cetera. And each girl was assigned to it

job. And the other three did not come

contact with that work. That one part

girl only. There were four in one shift, four 

girls that were working with this. 

 The other girls that did 

also as much as everybody else were the 

that passed the work out. The work was 

to the girl that was figuring the work a

never left her desk. And that same girl 

come and give the work to you. She would give 

you the work and when she brought the fresh 

work, she would pick it up. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 212

1 

2 

3 owels 

4 even 

5 wash 

6 owels 

7 was 

8 at was one, the girls that 

9 passed the work out. 

10 

11 piece 

12 the 

13 that 

14 And 

15 that little meter was 

16 removed from the machine and the girls were 

17 

18 the girls 

19 that handled this filthy papers also, which 

20 they never, ever left their seat either 

21 because there you cannot waste a second. 

22 I one day decided to see exactly 

smelly and greasy and everything else, 

whatever, you know, powders and stuff, were so 

bad that the girls that figured it had t

to wipe their hands on. They were not

allowed to get out of the desk to go 

their hands. So they handed fresh t

daily because they knew that this work

that dirty. Th

 And the third girl that handled it 

was the typist. The typists worked 

work. They had a little meter on

typewriter that totaled how many letters

they hit and each stroke that they typed.

at the end of the day, 

paid piece work for typing. 

 So those typists were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 213

1 

2 

3 andled 

4 than 1,000 of those filthy papers in one 

5 shift. 

6 went 

7 I had 

8 of my 

9 

10 

11 et up 

12 night 

13 w how 

14 here 

15 use I 

16 ars old and since then, those 

17 buildings have been torn down. Those doctors 

18 

19 member 

20 very clearly, the girl that was typing those 

21 had been working before me and she was the 

22 very, very best typist in the place, suddenly 

how many invoices that I figured in one day, 

which stunned me. I couldn't believe myself. 

 I figured over 1,000 invoices. I h

more 

 And every single day when I

home, I couldn't walk straight because 

such a pain as a pit out of the middle 

ribs. And then I would go home and I would 

rest and do what I had to do. Get up in the 

morning, I would be in perfect health, g

and go to work again. I came home every 

with that pain again. And I don't kno

many doctors I went to, how many x-rays t

were. Those places are all closed beca

am 84 ye

are all dead. 

 But one thing that I do re
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 214

1 

2 

3 , we 

4 hello, 

5 sure 

6 r you 

7 akes, 

8 go to a doctor or you are going to be 

9 fired. 

10 

11 h his 

12 dead 

13 got a 

14 going blind. 

15 And she went to the doctors. The girl never 

16 

17 

18 

19 g off 

20 girls left and right and I had gotten a job 

21 offer as office manager with double my pay. I 

22 am not going to lie about it. And I grabbed 

 one day started to make mistakes and they 

kept multiplying. And so she got called into 

the office and the boss, which you know

weren't allowed to talk, to say 

goodbye, or nothing because you had to be

you kept work. And he told her eithe

find out why you are making these mist

you 

 And of course, her husband was at 

war and when he came home from war wit

leg that he lost at war, came home to a 

wife. Because what happened was she 

tumor in her head and she was 

came back because she died from cancer. 

 The girl that was passing out the 

work and picking up the work also, I had left 

Norton Company because they were layin
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 215

1 

2 

3 wil lea

4 d the 

5 and I 

6 ugged 

7 from 

8 ll 90 

9 

10 

11 place I 

12 worked in 32 years of my days of work. And I 

13 rs. 

14 ck to 

15 irls, and they 

16 graduated from school at 15 years old and were 

17 

18 

19 wash 

20 toilets before I go back to Norton Company 

21 with those working conditions that they had 

22 there. And we were under threat at all times 

it. I told my boss, don't lay off one of the 

girls. You know, keep one of the girls and I 

l ve because I have a job offer. 

 And I am walking downtown, an

girl that passed the work out was Jenny,

ran into Jenny. And she grabbed me and h

me and cried and cried because she died

cancer, too. All of us got cancer. A

percent -- I don't know how many of the girls 

that worked in that office died from cancer or 

a heart condition. It was the worst 

had nightmares about it for years and yea

 Years later, when I went ba

work because I was raising my g

sent to college, I went back to work. 

 The first job that was offered to 

me was Norton Company. I said I will
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 216

1 

2 

3 to ay 

4 his in 

5 like 

6 en we 

7 o the 

8 e had 

9 

10 that it was as cloudy of dust as it is on a 

11 

12 k you 

13 t input. And I believe NIOSH has 

14 probably also interviewed this petitioner or 

15 som ody

16 e. 

17 

18 

19 ght. I had a 

20 kidney removed for cancer and I had two feet 

21 of my colon removed from cancer. 

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

that if we quit, we couldn't be hired anyplace 

else because they would see to it. So we had 

st there during the war. 

 Like I says, you hear about t

factories, not in an office. This place,

I said, the papers smelled so bad. Wh

went to lunch, when we had to go t

cafeteria, God forbid we were hungry, w

to walk through these parts of the factory 

foggy day near the ocean. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, than

for tha

eb ? 

 MS. CARIGLIA: Yes, they hav

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, okay. So we 

have additional information from you as well. 

MS. CARIGLIA: Ri
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 217

1 

2 

3 them 

4 y one 

5 ft. Janette Roy 

6 jus pas

7 also 

8 oh, I 

9 

10 

11 ked in 

12 hat I 

13 dren. 

14 stand 

15 mell of perfume. And there is no 

16 explanation. Why do I have damaged lungs and 

17 

18 

19 ne or 

20 know what it was like. Of course you know, 

21 because everyone today will work under any 

22 conditions to have a job. I myself, if I had 

MS. CARIGLIA: And I was very, very 

lucky because they had no CAT Scan. They had 

no colonoscopy. They had nothing in

days. So, I was very -- I am the onl

living. I am the only one le

t sed away a short while ago. 

 I do have damage to my lungs

that has been discovered through x-rays, 

don't know, maybe 15, 20 years ago, I don't 

know how long ago, with no explanation. 

Nobody has any explanation. I never smo

my life. No one in my family smoked t

lived with at home, my husband or my chil

None of us smoke, drink or I can't even 

the s

cancer? 

 Like I said, you know, it is very, 

very difficult. You can't even imagi
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 218

1 

2 Norton no matter how bad it was. 

3 MAN ZIEMER: Okay, well thank 

4 you or 

5 o ask 

6 tions 

7 innefeld relating to the activities 

8 at rto

9 

10 

11 the profile here 

12 and stuff. Was this enriched uranium or do we 

13 about this uranium? 

14 you. 

15 

16 is a 

17 

18 

19 ill answer that. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: My recollection is 

21 there were some reports of some enriched 

22 uranium there, yes. 

to put food on my table, I would go back to 

 CHAIR

 f that input. 

 Board members, I am going t

you now if you have any additional ques

for Mr. H

No n. 

Okay, go ahead Brad and then Josie. 

 MEMBER CLAWSON: I just had a 

question. I was reading in 

know that much 

MS. CARIGLIA: I can't hear 

There is a noise. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: This 

question for Mr. Hinnefeld. He is asked 

whether this was enriched or natural uranium. 

 Mr. Hinnefeld w
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 219

1 

2 

3 ed to 

4 ld and I just wanted to kind of follow up 

5 on it. 

6 We 

7 plete 

8 eived 

9 

10 

11 is is 

12 . On 

13 ny of 

14 such 

15 rcent 

16 t. I 

17 

18 

19 

20 The reason I was wondering, is it 

21 called out 160 kilograms of uranium that was 

22 shipped back to Fernald and I was just trying 

MEMBER CLAWSON: Do we know any of 

the enrichments? The reason why, this is kind 

of a double thing because it was shipp

Ferna

 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't recall.

don't have -- we have very incom

information about what material they rec

and how much material they received. It is 

just we have sketches of it. We will have 

like a memo from a particular day when th

what we have online or particular orders

this order, we want them to make so ma

these crucibles, ceramic crucibles, using

and such beryllium and such and such pe

uranium. We have some things like tha

don't recall now whether any of those -- I 

want to say some of those were enriched but I 

don't recall for sure. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 220

1 

2 

3 look into that further down another aspect. 

4 y be. 

5 tion about it. I 

6 

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: All right. 

8 Josie? 

9 

10 

11 an idea of the residual period that you are 

12 

13 tarted 

14 ration 

15 ted in 

16 ok on 

17 

18 

19 rt. Now there is a 

20 new one I am thinking that is working its way 

21 through the Department and I don't know if 

22 that is going to change or not. 

to get a feel for if it was enriched or if it 

was natural or what it was doing. But be can 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, there ma

 We may have some informa

just can't recall it right now. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. Stu, I know 

this isn't on the table but could you give us 

looking at, the time frame? 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it s

the year after the operation. The ope

ran through '57. Right? And so it star

'58 and it ran through 2006. If you lo

the facilities database, it runs through 2006. 

 That is the publication date of our last 

residual radioactivity repo
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 221

1 

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, Mark 

3 Gri on.

4 this 

5 ve to 

6 mean, 

7 that 

8 much 

9 

10 handling this stuff. So think there alone is 

11 

12 posed 

13 that 

14 thing but I think it is a lot 

15 

16 

17 

18 Petitioner was talking about her end of it, 

19 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

21 MR. RUTHERFORD: Her end of it with 

22 documentation and such and identifying that 

MEMBER BEACH: Okay, thank you. 

 

ff 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I think

is another one of those where we ha

examine the definition of the Class. I 

I think we just heard the petitioners say

it wasn't 3,000. In fact, it was a 

smaller population that was involved in 

some evidence. 

 And if it was like 2,500 as op

to 3,000 and we couldn't sort it out,

would be one 

lower. And I know, maybe you don't' have it 

right now but -- 

 MR. RUTHERFORD: I think the 

her experience. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 222

1 

2 

3 take 

4 t was 

5 sonnel 

6 d and 

7 rt of 

8 mean, that is what I took from 

9 

10 

11 und sta

12 MS. CARIGLIA: May I say something? 

13 -- is it Ms. 

14 Car lia

15 

16 that 

17 

18 that the surroundings were very dusty and 

19 Am I 

20 understanding that correctly? 

21 MS. CARIGLIA: First of all, you 

22 have the history that one company, the U.S. 

clerks were also exposed as well. 

MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I would

her statements as saying that this plan

not very well controlled and that per

movement in this plant was not controlle

everyone who was there in the factory pa

the plant, I

her discussion. 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, my 

er nding is that from -- 

 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: 

ig ? 

 MS. CARIGLIA: Cariglia. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- Cariglia,

your group was actually more like clerks but 

dirty from the work in the plant. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 223

1 

2 

3 som hin

4 I am 

5 s the 

6 d one 

7 other 

8 other 

9 

10 same thing applied to the factories. So each 

11 factory was working on a different product. 

12 

13 worked 

14 orked 

15 uld be 

16 as I 

17 

18 

19 I am 

20 telling you that even though there were 100 

21 girls working in that particular office, there 

22 were only three of us that were handling that 

Steel, I also worked there, there is a huge 

land coverage and each one of those plants did 

et g different. 

 Let's say for an example, 

going to use the kitchens because that i

best I can do. You have five kitchens an

kitchen might be cooking beans, and 

kitchen may be cooking spaghetti, and an

kitchen is cooking chicken. And this is the 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MS. CARIGLIA: People that 

with the product that I particularly w

with myself, that I handled myself, I wo

the only one handling those papers, 

explained to you. The other person that would 

handle it was the girls that passed out the 

work and the girls that typed from that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 224

1 

2 

3 of uff

4 office 

5 t any 

6 body 

7 ifferent line 

8 of rk.

9 

10 

11 e 15 

12 all 

13 t of 

14 e the 

15 erent 

16 ds of 

17 

18 

19 , you 

20 know, covering the guys but these girls are 

21 walking through with high heels and nylons, 

22 and they used to say you had to wear white 

filthy paper, the particular papers that were 

soiled with oil and had dust and all that sort 

st . 

 These other girls at our 

they would handle, that were sitting, mos

particular girl ever handled would be a

of 50 because they were doing a d

wo That applies to the factory. 

 The same thing with these factories 

that I walked through myself. Those factories 

that I walked through, there were mayb

guys working in there with masks on at

times. They always had masks. A lo

times, they had covering clothes lik

astronauts. You know, they had diff

kinds of overalls, special hats, all kin

special clothing. But I don't know why they 

had us walk through there each time we went to 

the cafeteria. Here they act so fussy
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 225

1 

2 

3 sense. 

4 me but little do I know 

5 now hat

6 y had 

7 ter. 

8 cause 

9 

10 whatever they were working with. It was only 

11 . 

12 wire 

13 pecial 

14 o wear uniforms. Not 

15 the whole company. It doesn't matter how many 

16 

17 

18 

19 what to what Mark's question was. But I 

20 think one of the questions will be can we 

21 distinguish who those are. And Larry, can you 

22 help? 

gloves to work in that office, they were so 

particular. They had us walk through that 

mess, regardless what to me don't make 

 Nothing made sense to 

 t I am 84 years old. 

 You cannot compare whether the

5,000, 8,000, or 2,000. This doesn't mat

 It has nothing to do with it be

everybody did not work with that uranium or 

a handful of people that were hand-picked

 The same thing worked at the

mill. They had special people to do s

jobs and they also had t

people worked in the company. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

 That is very helpful. That maybe speaks 

some
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 226

1 

2 

3 is ing

4 int I 

5 f the 

6 site, 

7 ed on 

8 t was 

9 

10 

11 have 

12 have 

13 take 

14 I am 

15 s has 

16 have 

17 

18 and a half years old. We have nothing that we 

19 this 

20 action. 

21 MS. CARIGLIA: Yes, because they 

22 are all dead. It is so unfair. The thing of 

MS. CARIGLIA: Well, you can't -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Mr. Elliott 

go to speak now. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: You know, the po

want to make here is that through all o

work, research that we have done on this 

we are not able to figure out who work

the uranium crucibles. Okay? Where i

done. We can't locate the building on this 

one mile by one and a half mile site. 

 So you know, we feel that we

got the Class definition right. We 

vetted it with DOL and I would ask you to

this one up and vote it yes because 

campaigning for these old claims and thi

about six of the oldest claims that we

got, two or three of them that are over six 

can do for these claimants, except take
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 227

1 

2 

3 years 

4 learn 

5 t get 

6 . No 

7 what you asked, it is a military 

8 secret. 

9 

10 

11 have given us here today. So we are going to 

12 . 

13 , do you have any 

14 questions or comments? And if not, it would 

15 have a motion. 

16 I wish 

17 

18 

19 very helpful. So we are ready to proceed 

20 here, thank you. 

21 MS. CARIGLIA: Thank you. 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Stu, as far as 

it is, I am really, really -- have to tell you 

when we worked there, I did ask questions. I 

am not going to lie. Because I was 18 

old and I wanted to learn. I wanted to 

every minute of my day. And we could no

answers. They would not tell us anything

matter

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, well, we 

understand and we appreciate the help that you 

proceed now with final discussion on this

 Board members

be in order to 

MS. CARIGLIA: Okay, because 

I could help you. 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, you have been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 228

1 

2 

3 area? 

4 -- I 

5 Norton might have had machinists. 

6 I no

7 MS. CARIGLIA: Oh, they had 

8 mac nis

9 

10 

11 whether it is feasible to do this 

12 

13 ion. 

14 

15 you. 

16 it feasible to do 

17 

18 

19 ermine 

20 feasibility of dose reconstruction, we need to 

21 know if we can reconstruct, in this case, it 

22 is a very difficult issue. You have thorium, 

outreach, you might have said this while I was 

reading, I apologize, but what kind of 

outreach did you do in the Worcester 

Was there a union involved? Did you get

am imagining 

 am t sure. 

 

hi ts. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: In discharging what 

we are trying to do here, which is determine 

reconstruction. 

MS. CARIGLIA: We had no un

There was no union. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, thank

We are trying to decide is

dose reconstruction. And we are not really 

trying to advertise the program. 

 And in order to det
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 229

1 

2 

3 n an 

4 s far 

5 so we 

6 mpaign 

7 ld be 

8 nical 

9 

10 

11 I do 

12 y old 

13 also 

14 n the 

15 uildings this 

16 work was done. You said you can't even 

17 

18 

19 ing stuff at very 

20 old facilities and you can usually drum up, 

21 five, six, ten, people and get some useful 

22 production information out of it. 

uranium, and their progeny, not in equilibrium 

and that is a difficult reconstruction. 

 So we did not embark o

interview campaign. We have not had, a

as I know, a formal outreach there. And 

did not embark on an interview ca

because we didn't believe that anyone wou

able to describe to us sufficient tech

information that this is how you reconstruct 

thorium doses. So we did not engage. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, and 

appreciate Larry's, you know, these ver

cases. I do appreciate that. But I

can't imagine that there is not people i

area that can tell you what b

identify which buildings did the work. 

 I mean, I can't imagine. I have 

done a lot of this risk mapp
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 230

1 

2 

3 er the question? If we find out, first 

4 of l -

5 BER GRIFFON: It could help 

6 def e t

7 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- if we have 

8 ind ati

9 

10 define the Class. If could help refine the 

11 Cla . 

12 

13 can. 

14 e do 

15 we do 

16 erred 

17 

18 

19 ass? 

20 We can limit the Class to all 

21 workers that worked in Building X. And then 

22 we have to reconstruct the doses for all 

MR. RUTHERFORD: Here is the 

question I have for you, Mark. Is that going 

to answ

al - 

 MEM

in he Class. 

 

ic on -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: It could help 

ss That is what I am saying. 

MR. RUTHERFORD: No, it can't.

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm saying it

 MR. RUTHERFORD: Because if w

not know the environmental releases. If 

not know how the material is transf

onsite, if we don't know where the material 

was stored, we don't know enough information 

about those things, how do we limit the Cl
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 231

1 

2 

3 not 

4 was moved around the 

5 sit it

6 ake a 

7 lp us 

8 ews do 

9 

10 

11 they 

12 lding 

13 , we 

14 ial was 

15 moved, the personnel, how they were 

16 on. 

17 

18 

19 irty, 

20 this kind of work. And one of the things that 

21 I would say that we did hear from the 

22 interviews that were conducted with claimants 

employees that worked outside that building. 

How are we going to do that? If we do not 

know any environmental releases, we do

know how the material 

e, is very difficult. 

 That is the reason why we m

decision that will worker interviews he

defining the Class? Will worker intervi

anything to change our situation? And that is 

how we come to that. 

 We do have indication that

possibly, that the work was done in a bui

called the Industrial Building. But again

do not know beyond that how the mater

controlled, environmental releases and so 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Let me add, too, this 

is Larry Elliott again, these kind of 

processes, as you know, Mark, are very d
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 232

1 

2 

3 that 

4 t yet 

5 that comes from the floor, 

6 was omp

7 this 

8 the paper itself stank. You 

9 know, their hands -- 

10 

11 I asked if you heard that, who did you 

12 or was it in CATI interviews? 

13 CATI 

14 views. 

15 : Okay, fine. All 

16 right. 

17 

18 

19 nda Munn has a 

20 comment. 

21 MS. CARIGLIA: Now, what is the 

22 question you would like me to answer? 

and especially what you have heard from the 

petitioner today, serving in a job 

classification that doesn't really put 

individual in on the process floor bu

dealing with stuff

 c elling to us. 

 We heard loud and clear that

was messy, that 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, that is why 

interview

MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, they were

inter

MEMBER GRIFFON

MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 

MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Wa
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 233

1 

2 further questions for you. Thank you. 

3 . Thank you. I 

4 hop the

5 HAIRMAN ZIEMER: Wanda, did you 

6 hav a c

7 nt is 

8 ld be 

9 

10 

11 here. 

12 d to 

13 ss of 

14 ester, 

15 Massachusetts for the 83.14 SEC petition that 

16 so. 

17 

18 as a motion to approve the NIOSH 

19 

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Seconded. 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And seconded by 

22 Brad. Is there discussion, further 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, we have no 

 MS. CARIGLIA: Okay

e petition will be approved. 

 C

e omment? 

 MEMBER MUNN: My only comme

just an observational experience. It wou

difficult to imagine why any enriched uranium 

or thorium would be used for crucibles in the 

type of material that has been described 

 But that having been said, I am prepare

move that we accept the proposed cla

employees at Norton Company in Worc

has been presented to us as NIOSH has done 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I will take that 

recommendation. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 234

1 

2 (No 

3 rs not 

4 ote on 

5 is to 

6 on of 

7 . We 

8 call vote. We will get Dr. 

9 Melius' vote later. 

10 

11 . 

12 riffon? 

13 : Abstain. 

14 ? 

15 . 

16 ey? 

17 

18 

19 Yes. 

20 MR. KATZ: Dr. Roessler? 

21 MEMBER ROESSLER: Yes. 

22 MR. KATZ: Dr. Poston? 

discussion, pro or con? 

response.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: There appea

to be. I take it that we are ready to v

this petition, which would be the motion 

recommend to the Secretary the additi

this class to the Special Exposure Cohort

will take a roll

MR. KATZ: Mr. Clawson? 

MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes

MR. KATZ: Mr. G

MEMBER GRIFFON

MR. KATZ: Ms. Munn

MEMBER MUNN: Aye

MR. KATZ: Mr. Presl

MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes. 

MR. KATZ: Mr. Schofield? 

MEMBER SCHOFIELD: 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 235

1 

2 

3 s. 

4 

5 abstain. 

6 Ms. Beach? 

7 

8 Ziemer? 

9 

10 MR. KATZ: And I will get Dr. 

11 Melius' vote. We will get Dr. Melius' vote 

12 

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, the ayes 

14 

15 

16 an 

17 

18 presented to the Board for final review 

19 te as 

20 well. 

21 Thank you very much. And thank you 

22 for Ms. Cariglia for being on the line with us 

MEMBER POSTON: Yes. 

MR. KATZ: Dr. Lockey? 

MEMBER LOCKEY: Ye

MR. KATZ: Mr. Gibson? 

MEMBER GIBSON: I'll

MR. KATZ: And 

MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

MR. KATZ: And Dr.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 

tomorrow. 

 

have it since the abstentions don't count as 

negatives. 

 So, the motion carries and

appropriately worded recommendation will be 

tomorrow and we will get Dr. Melius' vo
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 236

1 

2 

3 ng to 

4 eak until 3:30 and we will resume at 

5 

6 itled 

7 he record at 3:08 p.m. and 

8 res ed 

9 

10 

11 And 

12 er of 

13 tion. 

14 But 

15 ating 

16 ve at 

17 

18 

19 Board 

20 as well. Mr. Griffon, particularly, had some 

21 questions and, I guess, responses to the radon 

22 model. And Mark, if you want to sort of 

today. 

MS. CARIGLIA: You're welcome. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We are goi

take a br

that point. 

 (Whereupon, the above-ent

matter went off t

um at 3:37 p.m.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

 We are ready to resume the session. Our next 

item of discussion deals with Blockson. 

you may recall and we have had a numb

discussions on the Blockson SEC peti

That petition itself is on the table. 

there was an issue under discussion rel

to the so-called radon model. I belie

our last meeting Dr. Neton presented the, I 

guess we would call it the radon model for 

Blockson and that was promulgated to the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 237

1 

2 

3 Mark, 

4 his and any 

5 concerns that may remain that you have. 

6 ? 

7 Mark 

8 S and 

9 

10 

11 tions. So those are both available 

12 to the Board members in part of the 

13 

14 d you 

15 have received those, I guess it was a 

16 couple of weeks ago. I forget the exact date. 

17 

18 

19 note that we sent this also to the 

20 petitioners. 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay, yes, I guess 

outline -- and I believe the Board members 

have received copies of the responses but we 

will get those on the record here. And 

you can review your take on t

Did you have a comment as well

 MR. KATZ: Just to be clear,

has provided for the Board and for OCA

all parties involved, a set of questions about 

the model. And then OCAS has responded to 

those ques

proceedings. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. An

should

 Larry? 

MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I want to make 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 238

1 

2 

3 ciate Jim Neton 

4 tur ng 

5 e is 

6 have 

7 cking 

8 e can 

9 

10 

11 xing. 

12 s ago 

13 ea of 

14 that 

15 like 

16 ter a 

17 

18 

19 three 

20 hours at a certain operation, with a higher 

21 concentration gradient and is there any chance 

22 that that kind of scenario would produce 

I did distribute the questions and they were -

- I guess I was a little tardy in getting 

those out, too. And I appre

ni them around fairly quickly. 

 I guess the fundamental -- ther

a number of little things that I 

questions on. But one of my biggest sti

points still, and this I am not sure w

ask NIOSH much more on this but for me anyway, 

personally, I still have a concern about this 

assumption of uniform instantaneous mi

And the question I raised several meeting

and also in these question was the id

could you have concentration gradients

were near certain operations? It seems

we are talking about the sulfuric diges

lot. But you know, concentration gradients 

that developed that basically; the example I 

framed was an individual works two to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 239

1 

2 

3 model? 

4 could 

5 d be 

6 onse. 

7 OSH's 

8 e can 

9 

10 

11 quite higher 

12 than a lot of data that is available, even 

13 

14 y are 

15 they feel it would 

16 bound. I don't want -- I will stick to my 

17 

18 

19 about 

20 and I am just going over my notes here. Some 

21 of the particular things in the model that I 

22 raised in the questions, for those that didn't 

higher exposures that would be not be bounded 

by the 95th percentile in the current NIOSH 

 And you know, I asked if that 

be modeled, if that kind of scenario coul

modeled. And there wasn't a model resp

There was a response sort of stating NI

position. I won't restate that. Peopl

read that but basically they said that the 

95th, they felt, would bound for several 

reasons and also that the 95th is

though it wasn't from the time period. 

 So a number of factors, the

saying that basically 

points, not NIOSH's position. 

 You know, and so that is one of the 

primary things that I am still concerned
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 240

1 

2 

3 from 

4 0.7 

5 other 

6 A had 

7 ll of 

8 be released but that would 

9 sort of scale back. 

10 

11 of a 

12 would 

13 radon 

14 , that, I don't 

15 think, is a huge point to be made but more 

16 

17 

18 

19 l, at 

20 least in my mind, a little confusion on that. 

21 I think they do have a map with the 

22 footprint. The height was sort of through 

look at them, the fraction of radon released 

this f value in the model and the Monte Carlo 

model that they used, they set the range

zero to 0.7. I sort of understand the

ceiling that was discussed with some 

experts and with SC&A. I think SC&

originally set it to one, assuming that a

the radon would

 I am not sure I understand putting 

the bottom value at zero but that is more 

minor point. But I assume that there 

always be some small fraction of 

released. So, like I said

like a Site Profile type of issue. 

 The building volume, I did have 

some concerns about this. Not only where this 

number came from. I think there is stil
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 241

1 

2 

3 I a not

4 so, I 

5 ocess. 

6 there 

7 ay or 

8 dary. 

9 

10 

11 that 

12 some of the volume where 

13 the concentration was averaged over. So that 

14 

15 t of 

16 have 

17 

18 and that was another reason they used the 95th 

19 that 

20 information. 

21 So I start to, you know, my concern 

22 there again is that you see this trend of, you 

interviews or through an assumption that it 

was the same height as Building 55, I think. 

m sure about that. 

 But then the building was al

think divided for another production pr

 I am not sure. I think NIOSH assumed 

was a physical boundary there and there m

may not have really been a physical boun

 But one thing I noted in my questions was 

that there was no accounting for equipment and 

this is large equipment in this building

would have displaced 

wasn't sort of taken out. 

 And I think NIOSH has sor

indicated to me that they just wouldn't

that information to be able to do that anyway 

percentile, because they didn't have
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 242

1 

2 

3 that is one of my concerns in the model. 

4 rate, 

5 rstand 

6 0 tons 

7 year 

8 yes. 

9 

10 

11 ly corroborated 

12 with interviews or how, you know, how that was 

13 

14 e 160 

15 this 

16 ether 

17 

18 

19 at is 

20 why I wanted to understand because I have read 

21 some of the transcripts indicating that 

22 people -- and I thought it was referring to 

know, it is a high value. It sort of takes 

care of all ills that we don't know about and 

 Another one is the production 

6,000 tons a year. The best I can unde

it is this came from one memo. No, 6,00

a week. I'm sorry. Your response said a

in one spot and I think that was a typo,

 So, 6,000 tons a week was the production rate 

and I think that just came from one memo. I 

am not sure if that was real

sort of, you know, finally resolved. 

 And that also ties in with th

hours per week and I have already brought

one up before. But the question of wh

this production was going on, basically 24 

hours a day, if you don't assume, if you 

assume an 8-hour it seems sort of -- th
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 243

1 

2 

3 ifts or having 

4 con ant

5 ance, 

6 t was 

7 hift, 

8 by a 

9 

10 

11 yway, the concentrations might go up, maybe 

12 not by a factor of three but that might affect 

13 

14 that 

15 own and whether people 

16 accept that the 95th is just going to take 

17 

18 

19 tress 

20 the main one is this concentration gradient 

21 question that, you know, I just envisioned and 

22 maybe I'm wrong about my picture of this 

Building 55. I may be wrong on this and that 

is why I am raising it, where they did talk 

about working the three sh

st operation in the building. 

 If this operation, for inst

was processing 6,000 tons a week and i

only doing it on an eight or ten hour s

then obviously the concentrations go up 

factor of three. You know, so you are 

processing more volume in a shorter time. 

An

it. 

 And again, it just raises 

question of another unkn

care of that. I don't know. 

 So those are, I think those are the 

main things that I have left. And to s
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 244

1 

2 

3 the 

4 would 

5 ks. I 

6 mean -- well, I will just leave that at that. 

7 gester 

8 g out 

9 

10 

11 and 

12 t out 

13 ng, you are not going to get sort 

14 of this mixing throughout this huge warehouse 

15 

16 ents? 

17 

18 around the digester tanks from eight, ten 

19 ons I 

20 raised. 

21 And then the other question is, 

22 that may not be the highest -- I mean, I 

facility but I do understand now that the -- 

well, first of all, I am not even certain in 

my mind anyway that the sulfuric -- that 

highest concentration gradient 

necessarily be near the digester tan

 But if I think about the di

tanks with the sulfuric acid radon comin

of these tanks, it seems to me that you are 

going to have more radon in a higher 

concentration gradient near the tank

ventilation will start to work and pull i

of the buildi

instantaneously. 

 So how high are these gradi

Can you model by sort of putting a building 

feet, I don't know. These are the questi
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 245

1 

2 

3 rs in 

4 est areas concentration. So that is 

5 one hin

6 ok at 

7 e of 

8 little 

9 

10 

11 years 

12 I was 

13 always 

14 s that were going on in Building 

15 40. But you do see quite a bit of variability 

16 

17 

18 higher values were not necessarily associated 

19 e the 

20 biggest radon generators. 

21 Now, the magnitude of these values, 

22 I will say as Jim has stated again and again, 

understand these are on the third floor and 

would workers be in those areas for two of the 

-- what are the proximity with the worke

the high

 t g. 

 The other thing when you lo

it, I mean, I was trying to look at som

the sampling data and getting a 

confused, I might add, because I am not sure I 

was comparing apples and apples because there 

is quite a bit of radon data from other 

but I am not sure it is always -- when 

looking at it, I wasn't sure if it was 

the processe

in the samples. 

 And oftentimes I saw some of the 

with these processes that we expect wer
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 246

1 

2 

3 urest 

4 aneous 

5 ing, 

6 value 

7 pling. 

8 d you 

9 

10 

11 ts. Are they significant enough to be 

12 above the 95th? That goes back to my main 

13 

14 ow, I 

15 re we 

16 argue 

17 

18 

19 much 

20 higher like Mallinckrodt because of what we 

21 know about the facility. And we raise it to 

22 the 95th because we have all of these 

are much lower than the ones derived in this 

model but it makes me wonder whether we are 

even, you know, again, just to take the p

vision of this, if you have instant

mixing and you sample throughout the build

you should get the exact same 

everywhere, given some error on the sam

 But you should get the same values. An

know, the sampling in later years, you are not 

seeing that. So there is obviously some 

gradien

concern. 

 And I just feel that, you kn

am not sure we know enough. I am not su

can model that scenario. And I would 

that without that information, I think we 

might be trying to convince ourselves that 

this is a high value. It can't be this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 247

1 

2 

3 a number that 

4 is nd 

5 I will leave it at that 

6 in. 

7 

8 Board 

9 

10 

11 have 

12 And I 

13 ectly 

14 t the 

15 om, I 

16 that 

17 

18 

19 r not 

20 there are gradients that would provide 

21 concentrations that indeed were outside what 

22 the bounding value is, is really what it boils 

unknowns. But do we really know, you know, 

are we really defining it through modeling or 

are we just kind of stabbing at 

ki of a medium level radon value. 

 So, anyway,

and let others weigh 

Silence. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, other

members, as you have reviewed the information, 

do you have additional comments on this issue? 

 Granted, it is fairly technical and I

talked some with Mark about it as well. 

don't think -- there is no way to perf

model this and you have to decide wha

objective of the model is. I think fr

believe NIOSH has tried to find a model

they believe will bound the situation, as I 

understand it. And as I understand Mark's 

concern, it has to do with whether o
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 248

1 

2 

3 , not 

4 some 

5 han the 

6 bounding value. I believe this is correct. 

7 I am 

8 to do 

9 

10 

11 would 

12 pretty 

13 The 

14 hat you are 

15 sure that covers 100 percent is to have an 

16 

17 

18 

19 how 

20 different is the end top of your gradient in 

21 your mind, let's say just intuitively, but how 

22 far are those apart? And right now we don't 

down to. 

 The kind of bounding that has been 

done in the past in other situations

necessarily with radon, always allows for

values that are actually higher t

 And Jim, you can correct me if

wrong but what we are looking at has 

with the probability that those higher numbers 

apply to a very large fraction of those who 

would be exposed. In general, you 

expect the correct bounding value to 

much cover at least most of the workers.

only way to get a bounding value t

outrageous value which is not realistic. 

 So, somewhere between these, the 

issue seems to boil down to how well has the 

NIOSH bounding value approached or
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 249

1 

2 

3 ously 

4 don't 

5 long 

6 rcing 

7 hrough 

8 g of a source term or some external 

9 constraints. 

10 

11 avier 

12 nward 

13 ients 

14 to be 

15 nation 

16 tical 

17 

18 

19 bit, that is one thing. If it is off a great 

20 deal, that changes things. So I don't know. 

21 That would seem less critical. 

22 I am trying to get a feel for 

have a good feel for that, I guess. 

 I am trying to get a feel, and this 

is somewhat intuitive. Because you obvi

never have instant mixing but you also 

have gradients that hang around for a

period of time, unless something is fo

them to remain as they were, either t

the feedin

 Otherwise, as I picture the radon 

coming off and this normally would be he

than air, I guess it would be moving dow

but then you may have temperature grad

but there are forces that are going 

mixing that, it seems to me, the combi

of temperature -- I don't know, how cri

is the issue raised about the size? Are we, I 

mean, if the building size is off a little 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 250

1 

2 

3 ecause 

4 nswer. 

5 there 

6 er or 

7 been 

8 an be 

9 

10 

11 will 

12 right 

13 on on the 

14 petition itself lies on the table and is kind 

15 

16 w Dr. 

17 

18 questions and there was email back and forth 

19 k for 

20 himself. 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Do you 

22 have the questions or does someone have his 

whether or not we are real far apart or if 

there is a way to come to closure on this. 

You know, in the end it may be that -- b

we are not going to have a definitive a

 I think you could modify the model but 

is always going to be a question of wheth

not it captures the issues that have 

raised. I don't know how well they c

captured. So, I am trying to get a feel for 

sort of how far apart we are on this. 

 The extent to which that 

affect the outcomes, which is making the 

decision also, right now the acti

of awaiting this issue, I believe. Okay? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Paul, I kno

Melius isn't here but he also had some 

and he is, of course, not here to spea
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 251

1 

2 

3 do a very 

4 jus fia

5 , one 

6 off 

7 e can 

8 l our 

9 

10 at some point we can remove this from the 

11 

12 the 

13 ppens. 

14 e may 

15 in a 

16 able. 

17 

18 and others, we have to come to some kind of 

19 er or 

20 not we can agree on it or not. 

21 And you know, it is okay if we 

22 can't agree on it. That is not, you know, we 

questions? 

 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I have the 

emails but probably wouldn't

ti ble attempt at explaining it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Well

possible -- and I don't want to cut

discussion here, if the Board wishes, w

defer further discussion on this unti

work session tomorrow. You know, I am hopeful 

table and take action. 

 The effect of leaving it on

table and no action is that nothing ha

I know we were split on this and w

continue to be split and the effect is,

sense, is the same as leaving it on the t

 But I think in fairness to the petitioners 

closure on this site, regardless of wheth
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 252

1 

2 

3 d you 

4 it is 

5 dually 

6 ot have reached a sort of a 

7 con nsu

8 other 

9 

10 

11 roach 

12 I am 

13 Texas City, right? So the 

14 

15 

16 you 

17 

18 

19 but it is also the idea of the 

20 occupancy and concentration gradients in 

21 combination. But you basically characterized 

22 my concerns. 

are not bad people if we can't agree. It is 

all right to disagree. And you know, that may 

be where we end up. That is okay. An

understand the sense in which I say 

okay? It may not feel okay to us indivi

because we will n

se s but -- yes. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, the 

important factor for at least the way I am 

considering it is that this, and I think Jim 

Neton has mentioned this, that this app

may be used at other sites. At least 

thinking of one 

importance on this model is perhaps beyond 

Blockson. You know? 

 And the other thing, and 

characterized pretty much the explanation. It 

is not necessarily just the concentration 

gradients 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 253

1 

2 

3 e SEC 

4 sible 

5 about 

6 ibed, coming out 

7 of ese

8 uation 

9 

10 

11 ff is 

12 ow, I 

13 mixing 

14 sible 

15 if we 

16 enough information to model that, 

17 then I think that is the way we have to 

18 

19 , and 

20 again, this is off the top of the head because 

21 you have thought a lot more about it than I 

22 have, but if you have a constant source term 

But the other thing in my mind as I 

am thinking through this is the plausible 

circumstances that we come back to in th

stuff. And can we model? Is this a plau

model? And that is why I am thinking 

what I described, as you descr

th tanks and stuff like that. 

 And I can see, sort of, a sit

where you have that constant gradient because 

the production is -- if that is true, the 

production is 160 hours a week. This stu

going through it constantly. So, you kn

thought that the uniform instantaneous 

model is not really in my mind the plau

model. So then, can we do the other and 

don't have 

consider this. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I suppose
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 254

1 

2 

3 period 

4 within 

5 ms of 

6 it may 

7 mean, most 

8 models are simplifications of real life. 

9 

10 

11 rt of 

12 to that because models are only 

13 simplifications of real life which is often 

14 

15 Well, if there are -- oh, Wanda 

16 Munn has a comment. I'm sorry I overlooked 

17 

18 

19 of 

20 gradients. Please remember that in the 

21 Blockson facility, we have been told 

22 repeatedly that everybody did everything. 

pumping things out and some other constraining 

parameters around, you would expect some kind 

of an equilibrium to occur after some 

of time, whether it is instantaneous or 

a, in terms of the long workweek, in ter

a relatively short period of time. And 

very well have a gradient to it. I

 I always liked, my friend Dan Strom 

at Battelle always says, most models are poor 

but some are helpful. And there is a so

realism

complex. 

it. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Just a sort of 

common-sense approach to the question 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 255

1 

2 

3 ft. They moved around from 

4 ne ac

5 air 

6 lity, 

7 were 

8 from 

9 

10 

11 uals. 

12 moves 

13 you 

14 gnant 

15 the 

16 t the 

17 

18 

19 and truly extremely cold, they opened what 

20 they called the barn doors and had a 

21 considerable amount of air movement there. 

22 So common sense would tell you that 

That means, no one did one single job all the 

time. They didn't even do the same single job 

throughout one shi

o pl e to another. 

 In addition to the normal

currents that would occur in any faci

especially one where large mixing tanks

being used and where people were moving

one place to another, any gradient that might 

occur would not create an exposure scenario 

that would focus on one or more individ

Since the people move around and the air 

around, and the material moves around,

certainly are not going to get sta

gradients even in the mid-winter when

building was not open, which was abou

only time the workers have told us the 

building wasn't open. When it wasn't really 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 256

1 

2 real deal-breaker. 

3 AIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

4 

5 

6 re is 

7 rcise 

8 ction 

9 

10 

11 ER GRIFFON: I can at least 

12 partially respond to that. I will take the 

13 

14 laid 

15 m the 

16 they 

17 

18 

19 someone working at a higher gradient, you 

20 know, an area with higher concentrations for 

21 two to three hours, not for their full shift. 

22 So you know, I think that is a 

the gradient problem wouldn't appear to be a 

 CH

 Other comments? 

(No response.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Then if the

no objection, I will, the Chair will exe

the prerogative of deferring further a

until tomorrow until we get the additional 

input. 

 MEMB

bait a little bit. 

 You know, my scenario that I

out, I did not, and I did hear that fro

transcripts and stuff that workers said

were all over that building. And that is why 

I asked for people to look at the potential of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 257

1 

2 

3 week, 

4 tical 

5 track 

6 e day 

7 don't have that sort of job 

8 tas ana

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dr. Neton, maybe 

10 

11 been 

12 here 

13 last 

14 ients 

15 s the 

16 Mark 

17 

18 

19 central question is, is a probabilistic model 

20 a reasonable, can a probabilistic model 

21 provide a reasonable upper bound? 

22 And relevant to the gradient issue, 

potential that they could have worked at some 

of those areas for a shorter, not a full 

shift, not eight hours and five days a 

et cetera. And I was using the hypothe

worker, even because you know, I can't 

where all these guys went throughout th

and you know, we

k lysis stuff. 

 

you can -- 

 DR. NETON: I have sort of

listening patiently and biting my tongue

but I couldn't resist to just make one

ditch comment here related to these grad

in particular because that, in my mind i

central issue. The other issues that

raised, I think he might agree are Site 

Profile type issues, tweaking the model. The 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 258

1 

2 

3 rent 

4 rate. 

5 inion 

6 bable 

7 that 

8 ing, it is about four picocuries per 

9 liter. 

10 

11 ation 

12 the 

13 ation in the 95th percentile, that 

14 allows for a geometric standard deviation of 

15 

16 ient 

17 

18 

19 bable 

20 value but our best estimate is it is 4 

21 picocuries per liter. We originally proposed 

22 that and then we moved to the 17 picocuries 

you recall, we put in parameters that we 

believe represent the range of possible 

variability over a number of diffe

parameters, including the ventilation 

If you were to ask NIOSH what our best op

is of the concentration, our most pro

opinion of the concentration rate in 

build

 Given that though, given that we 

allow for this range for different ventil

rates and that drives predominantly

concentr

about 2.7. 

 So in some sense, the grad

issue is there. It is not that the 95th 

percentile is the value that existed 

continuously, it is a 95th percentile pro
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 259

1 

2 

3 lation 

4 the release fraction 

5 fro the

6 hanks 

7 will 

8 l our 

9 

10 

11 brief 

12 f one hour for some reason. 

13 f the 

14 

15 RMAN ZIEMER: Things dropped 

16 

17 

18 

19 o stay on the 

20 schedule insofar as there may be folks on the 

21 phone who wish to dial in. And in fairness to 

22 them, we cannot move this up easily. 

per liter to allow for that geometric standard 

deviation of 2.7 that allows for the 

variability of and principally venti

rate and to some degree,

m sulfuric acid tanks. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, and t

for that clarification, Jim. Then we 

defer further discussion on this unti

work session tomorrow. And then see where we 

go from there. 

Now, we have scheduled a 

break o

MR. KATZ: Things dropped of

schedule. 

 CHAI

off the schedule. That is Ted's story and he 

is sticking to it. 

 In any event, for the public 

comment period, we do have t
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 260

1 

2 

3 a public comment even here 

4 loc ly.

5 MR. KATZ: No. Well, then the 

6 oth --

7 

8 ill call in 

9 for it and they might want to hear them. 

10 

11 to do 

12 some 

13 ecause some of these 

14 things are not ready to do until tomorrow 

15 

16 d here. I can 

17 do tomorrow morning's welcome. I can do that. 

18 

19 maybe 

20 propose, we have the twelfth set of cases. 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, yes. 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: And I can at least 

So, I suppose we could do some 

housekeeping things. No, I don't think in 

fairness we can do

al Can we, Ted? 

 

er 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. 

 MR. KATZ: -- People w

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, they want to 

hear them. So in fairness, we will have 

it at 5:00. So I guess, do you have 

housekeeping things? B

anyway on Board working time. 

And I am looking ahea

I'm glad you are all here. 

MEMBER GRIFFON: I can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 261

1 

2 their homework now and get it done. 

3 AN ZIEMER: Yes, let's do the 

4 hom ork

5 

6 thr pa

7 genda, 

8 Time? 

9 

10 

11 Mark's Dose 

12 Reconstruction Subcommittee. So Mark, if you 

13 

14 I was 

15 ists 

16 m are 

17 

18 

19 at is 

20 labeled the twelfth set of full primary 

21 internal, full primary external, or full 

22 internal and external claims with PoC from 30 

describe the homework and maybe people can do 

 CHAIRM

ew assignment. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, there is 

ee ckets. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: On the a

this is -- is this part of Board Working 

 It is Board Working Time, DR Case Selection. 

 And that is on tomorrow morning, as we said. 

 But this is part of 

would care to, take us through that. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, what 

going to propose, there is really three l

that Stu provided to us. And two of the

the same lists, they are just sorted 

differently. So, I would propose for tomorrow 

if you can work from the one list th
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 262

1 

2 

3 't we 

4 sort 

5 keep 

6 u can 

7 d ask 

8 other 

9 

10 through and highlight ones that you think are 

11 ses. 

12 uring 

13 nt to 

14 o task 

15 o keep 

16 two17 

18 

19 ve us 

20 more information. And what I would ask is 

21 that that additional information on the pre22 selected cases come back to the Subcommittee, 

to 60, sorted by PoC, it says at the end. 

 If we do the sorted by PoC one, -- 

well, you know what? Actually, why don

work from the other one because there is

of the ID number? It might be easier to

track of which ones we select. So if yo

highlight which cases. And what I woul

is that we go through that list, and the 

one is the random selected cases, and go 

good candidates for our twelfth set of ca

 And what I proposed to Paul d

one of our breaks was that since we wa

get these cases available for SC&A, t

SC&A with this twelfth set of cases t

the production going, we always to this

step process where at the Board here we preselect cases and then we are going to give 

them back to Stu, and Stu is going to gi
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 263

1 

2 

3 ht be 

4 ke the 

5 like we did before and 

6 tas SC&

7 ke to 

8 60 by 

9 

10 goal. 

11 

12 tenth 

13 n get 

14 because especially if we are 

15 not going to be tasked until September, the 

16 

17 

18 eleventh set or tenth set? 

19 we are 

20 talking about now is the -- 

21 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- twelfth. 

22 DR. MAURO: Is it the twelfth set? 

which I plan on having a meeting at the end of 

August or early September and then we can -- 

and Paul at least mentioned that we mig

able to authorize the Subcommittee to ma

final selections there,

k A to work on those. 

 DR. MAURO: I would just li

point out with the goal of trying to do 

the end of the this year. I mean, that is the 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: I believe the 

says 22. So the degree to which we ca

that last 38 in

rest of the year -- 

MEMBER GRIFFON: You meant the 

DR. MAURO: No, the set 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 264

1 

2 DR. MAURO: Twelfth set. My 

3 mis ke.

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: So the eleventh 

5 set s 2

6 AURO: I believe it is 22 and 

7 I a not

8 o we want to 

9 shoot for 38, is what you are saying. 

10 DR. MAURO: Only because we don't 

11 really have very much time at the end of the 

12 eft. 

13 l try 

14 

15 the 

16 is to take the copy that 

17 lists in numerical order the next group of 

18 

19 

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Starting with 201 

21 and so on. These are not actual case numbers, 

22 they are simply reference numbers for the 

MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 

ta 

 

 i 2? 

 DR. M

m sure if -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: S

 

year l

MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay, we wil

for 38. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, so

homework assignment 

cases. Is that correct? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 265

1 

2 actual cases. 

3 

4 those 

5 38, so we 

6 always try to get probably 50 or 55 is -- 

7 let's 

8 have 

9 

10 

11 c see 

12 

13 member does not 

14 necessarily have to have 50. But we want to 

15 end p w

16 . 

17 

18 

19 er it 

20 is, and authorize them to task SC&A for the 

21 normal assistance. And we can do that 

22 authorization tomorrow but that would be the 

Board to use to protect the identify of the 

And how many -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well out of 

and the random, we are looking for

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, so 

say roughly 50 cases that you want to

from which you will make your final selection. 

So you would like Board members to be prepared 

to indi ate cases that they would like to 

looked at. 

 Now, each 

 u ith at least 50 cases. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Probably, yes

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And the idea would 

be that we would ask the Work Group to make 

the final cut down to say 38 or whatev
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 266

1 

2 for 

3 k at 

4 that 

5 come 

6 d to recommend that in the open meeting 

7 tom row

8 

9 

10 

11 lowed 

12 look at the other list. We won't 

13 ban that. That is just a re-sort for 

14 

15 here 

16 The 

17 

18 

19 Di you

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I guess I 

21 don't have the smaller one. 

22 MEMBER GRIFFON: Does everybody 

intent. 

 So the homework assignment 

tonight is to take a preliminary loo

these. And if you see particular cases 

you think should be looked at, then

prepare

or . 

And Josie, a comment? 

 MEMBER BEACH: We can look at both 

lists for those 50? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You are al

to take a

convenience. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: No, no, no. T

is two. There is a random selected. 

smaller one is the randomly selected cases. 

And there is two copies of a thicker package. 

d get all three? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 267

1 

2 (Chorus 

3 N: So the one that 

4 say ful

5 l, I 

6 look at the third one but the 

7 res of 

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: And it is sorted 

9 by ID number. 

10 

11 

12 n and 

13 and 

14 ully it will come to around 50, 55, you 

15 know, and then we will cull it down from 

16 

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But two of the 

18 lists are the same things, just sorted 

19 

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Exactly. 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And the third is 

22 a separate list. 

have three packages? 

of yes.) 

 MEMBER GRIFFO

s l external, internal. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, wel

don't get to 

t you can. 

 

MEMBER ROESSLER: So do we pick a 

certain number from the little one -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Just go dow

pick any ones you think would be good

hopef

there. 

 

differently. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 268

1 

2 

3 us ea

4 Any 

5 estions then? You know, what the assignment 

6 is.

7 

8 f you 

9 

10 

11 that, as long as we reconvene at the time that 

12 has een

13 BEACH: Ted? 

14 e who 

15 al to comment. 

16 ecked 

17 

18 

19 computer gentleman walked in. And maybe some 

20 of us during that time could have our 

21 computers looked at as well. 

22 MR. KATZ: Right that is another 

MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, Stu is just 

trying to keep us on our toes doing that. I'm 

j t t sing. That is helpful, thanks. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

qu

Okay, final comments? 

 MR. KATZ: Well we can, i

want, we can entertain local public comments 

now if there are people that are ready to do 

 b placed on the schedule. 

 MEMBER 

MR. KATZ: We can get peopl

are loc

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You have ch

this out? 

 MEMBER BEACH: I also noticed the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 269

1 

2 

3 until 

4 ch time we will have the public 

5 

6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off 

7 at 4:12 p.m. and resumed 

8 

9 

10 

11 emind 

12 minute 

13 need 

14 of the Redaction Policy and Mr. 

15 Katz will give us a quick review of the 

16 

17 

18 

19 batim 

20 transcript made of the meeting. So, as a 

21 public commenter, everything you say will be 

22 recorded and will show up in this verbatim 

option. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, we are 

going to take a break until 4:00, or 

5:00, at whi

comment period. 

the record

at 5:04 p.m.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We are ready to 

begin the public comment portion of the 

Advisory Board meeting. I will briefly r

commenters that the Board has a tentime limit on public comments. Also we

to remind you 

Redaction Policy. 

 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. 

The Policy is, for those of you in the room 

and on the phone, there is a ver
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 270

1 

2 

3 self. 

4 other 

5 tion 

6 that 

7 the 

8 u, so 

9 

10 

11 this 

12 olicy is available on the NIOSH 

13 website. It is also available in the back of 

14 

15 dress 

16 Board 

17 

18 discuss that with me and see what kind of 

19 

20 And that's it. Thank you. 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you 

22 very much. The first individual this evening 

transcript, which will appear on the NIOSH 

website, including your name, including any 

personal information you give about your

If you speak about a third party, an

person, in other words, private informa

about that individual, identifying 

individual will be redacted from 

transcript, be blacked out, what have yo

it will not appear on the public transcript, 

generally speaking. 

 A full description of 

Redaction P

the room here. 

 And should someone want to ad

a member of the Board or members of the 

but not in a public fashion, they should 

arrangements we can make. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 271

1 

2 Fernald Medical Screening Program. 

3 thank 

4 the 

5 cerned 

6 time. 

7 ve an 

8 ck of 

9 

10 can't really control that but I had to comment 

11 

12 h the 

13 y due 

14 And 

15 great 

16 eening 

17 

18 

19 

20 So we get engaged in some of the 

21 process of filing claims, assisting people 

22 with occupational history and institutional 

will be Ray Beatty and Ray is representing 

 MR. BEATTY: First of all, 

you for bringing the Board meeting to

Cincinnati area. I am a little con

about the lack of turnout at the present 

 It concerns me a great deal that we ha

SEC petition pending and that the la

interest is disturbing to say the least but I 

on it. 

 My main concern to approac

Board and to have a comment is basicall

to a question that was asked yesterday. 

it is something that comes up quite a 

deal in our workings as medical scr

coordinators. We are sometimes privileged to 

the result letters and the health effects that 

some of the people have experienced. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 272

1 

2 

3 with 

4 But 

5 comes 

6 opinion, through in 

7 the the

8 least 

9 

10 

11 ility 

12 . We 

13 y to 

14 tances 

15 process 

16 there, it is not handled the same way. It is 

17 

18 

19 Labor 

20 Town Hall Meeting sponsored by the -- well, 

21 the Ombudsman for that office is going to be 

22 here in Fairfield, Ohio. And I tend to pose 

history of the plants. And in the process of 

filing the various claims, and I am fully 

aware that the Board deals primarily

Subtitle B and radiation-induced cancers.

the process of doing dose reconstruction

into play, at least in our 

 o r process of Subtitle E. 

 And here lies the problem; at

I sense a problem. We see dose reconstruction 

being performed and if a claimant doesn't 

reach the 50 percent threshold of Probab

of Causation, the claim is denied under B

understand that. And then when they tr

pursue the claim under E for toxic subs

and using the dose reconstruction 

rather inconsistent and it is very confusing. 

 I do know that August the 11th 

there is going to be a Department of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 273

1 

2 I think that is the proper arena. 

3 seed 

4 roblem 

5 ing a 

6 d. A 

7 their 

8 under Subtitle E. And there lies the 

9 problem. 

10 

11 ms or 

12 t not being readily or being used 

13 or recognized. And it should be. It very 

14 

15 rcent, 

16 btitle 

17 

18 

19 onstruction. Well, they have 

20 already done it. So it is somewhat redundant 

21 or repetitive. I really don't have a real 

22 true grip on this. 

this question more in intricate detail because 

 But I just wanted to plant the

that there is still a little bit of a p

of this dose reconstruction that is cost

great deal of money. I should be utilize

claimant should be able to use that to 

benefit

 I don't know if DOL has a 50 

percent or greater threshold for E clai

if it is jus

well should be. 

 If someone doesn't make 50 pe

let's say 30 percent, they go to do a Su

E claim, let's say for skin cancer, and it is 

put on a back burner until they say NIOSH can 

do a dose rec
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 274

1 

2 

3 Board 

4 ation 

5 o, if 

6 l law 

7 eally 

8 house 

9 

10 

11 reconstruction information, that evidence to 

12 

13 just 

14 you. 

15 you, 

16 w, we 

17 

18 

19 haven't already on this issue and clarify some 

20 of the points from the Department of Labor's 

21 aspect. 

22 Next, we will hear from Wayne Knox. 

And like I say, I will approach the 

DOL Ombudsman's Office with this concern but 

it is something I just thought the 

should be aware of that the Adjudic

Process -- and I am not so certain, to

this is within the Act, within the federa

of what is going on here. Are we r

seeing due process or is this an inbulletin, circular, or something, an in-house 

decision DOL has made to not use that dose 

adjudicate the claims under E? 

So that is my concern. I

wanted to make it for the record. Thank 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank

Ray. And of course, as you already kno

deal with Part B claims. But perhaps Jeff 

Kotsch can speak with you privately, if you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 275

1 

2 

3 min es,

4 

5 have to remind 

6 Way be

7 last time, you 

8 all ed 

9 

10 we spoiled you. Welcome back, Wayne, and 

11 

12 hort. 

13 me in 

14 iation 

15 Army 

16 down 

17 

18 

19 a Radiation Technician Supervisor, as a 

20 Radiation Safety Officer, and also as the 

21 Operational Health Physics Analyst. 

22 So, I understand what goes on from 

 Welcome Wayne. And we have heard from Wayne 

in the past. We will give you your ten 

ut Wayne. 

MR. KNOX: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I 

ne cause he is a good lecturer. 

 MR. KNOX: But the 

ow me to sit at the head table. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You know, I think 

please proceed. 

 MR. KNOX: I will be very s

My name is Wayne Knox. I spent some ti

the military as a Captain and Rad

Physicist. I also spent time in the

Reserves as a Nuclear Medicine Scientist

at Eisenhower Hospital. And I have had the 

opportunity to actually work in the plants as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 276

1 

2 

3 ering 

4 diers, 

5 good 

6 e the 

7 . We 

8 to at least take care of 

9 their medical expenses. 

10 

11 The 

12 mputer 

13 don't 

14 ked 

15 ke to 

16 , validation and 

17 verification of that software. At this point, 

18 

19 that 

20 has not had an independent validation and 

21 verification leading to the certification of 

22 that software and all of the configuration 

the ground level. I have looked at this 

program and I want to get a solution that a 

number of radiation workers that are suff

and dying from cancer. These are sol

from my perspective. I do not feel as a

military officer, that we should leav

wounded soldiers on the battlefield dying

should do our best 

 I have performed an analysis of 

IREP because I think IREP is the problem.

basic problem is that we have this co

system that we have developed that I 

feel anyone knows how it works. I have as

for an independent, and I would li

underscore independent

it has never been performed. 

 How can we rely on any system
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 277

1 

2 

3 will 

4 hat any 

5 Quality Assurance Program would require that. 

6 make 

7 nutes 

8 with 

9 

10 

11 IREP 

12 be in 

13 m my 

14 sting 

15 not a 

16 as a 

17 

18 deterministic system is based upon statistic. 

19 will 

20 not tell you the same thing twice. 

21 We need to talk about that and talk 

22 about that relative to how Wayne Knox as an 

management requirements associated with it? I 

have attempted to get NIOSH's the Department 

of Labor Quality Assurance Program. They

not release it to me but I suspect t

 What I would like to do is to

it very simple, since I only have ten mi

is to ask you to allow me to sit down

someone that knows something about this and go 

through it. I have done some analysis and 

made some beautiful little charts of how

works. I have pinged it. I used to 

intelligence so I have mapped it fro

perspective. And there are some intere

things that go on with IREP. It is 

robust system. IREP would be defined 

non-deterministic system. Any non-

 Every time, it will tell you a lie. It
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 278

1 

2 

3 d how 

4 bility 

5 have 

6 ealth 

7 would 

8 ee on 

9 

10 dose conversion factors, DOE, NRC 

11 

12 ctors 

13 upon 

14 on my 

15 rcent. 

16 n you 

17 

18 

19 nd it 

20 appears that my assessment of IREP, which has 

21 some rather interesting behavior associated 

22 with it, it appears as though it is designed 

Operational Health Physicist in the plant, how 

would he actually calculate the radiation dose 

to the person and the radiation risk, an

he would go about calculating the Proba

of Causation. And I have done this. I

put myself in my role as an Operational H

Physicist at the plant, using what we 

use, based upon the Intra-Agency Committ

Radiation Standards' recommendations for the 

recommendations for those factors. 

 I have used those standard fa

that we use on a case in which, based 

IREP, you get 32.55 percent. Based up

assessment, I come up with over 80 pe

And it appears that we have said that whe

are working in a plant and you have no cancer, 

this is how we determine your radiation risk. 

 But if you have cancer, it changes. A
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 279

1 

2 

3 eye ll 

4 See, I did it in ten minutes. 

5 Right? 

6 ayne. 

7 o be 

8 were documents you 

9 just brought for illustration? 

10 

11 you but I am having someone 

12 else to look at them and validate them before 

13 

14 , have 

15 someone that knows health physics, that knows 

16 medical physics to sit down and talk with me. 

17 

18 

19 

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, understood. 

21 Let me also report to you and maybe we can 

22 make sure this is available to you because Dr. 

to deny claimants, by design. And I would 

just like to sit down and talk eyeball to 

ba with someone that knows. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you, W

 Are you asking for those documents t

submitted to us or those

 MR. KNOX: They are documents that 

I will submit to 

I submit them to you. 

 But I would like to, again

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MR. KNOX: I mean in a nonconfrontational manner. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 280

1 

2 

3 s are 

4 e paper itself. So, you 

5 sho d b

6 e to, 

7 with 

8 eople on your point about meeting with 

9 somebody. 

10 

11 p

12 

13 : Next, I 

14 understand that Terrie Barrie may be on the 

15 lin A

16 r. 

17 

18 

19 k you 

20 so much again for allowing me to call in my 

21 comments. 

22 This is Terrie Barrie from the 

Neton did report to us today on the validation 

and the verification of the IREP program. And 

I believe, at least a copy of his slide

available, if not th

ul e aware of that. 

 And beyond that, you would hav

we would have to have you talk privately

NIOSH p

So thank you, Wayne, for that 

in ut. 

 MR. KNOX: Yes, thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER

e. nd Terrie, are you there? 

 MS. BARRIE: Yes, I am, Docto

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, good. We 

would be pleased to hear from you now, Terrie. 

MS. BARRIE: Okay. Well, than
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 281

1 

2 

3 liott 

4 lats 

5 the 

6 no 

7 s and it confirms 

8 NIO 's 

9 

10 

11 When 

12 4,163 

13 that 

14 as no 

15 And NIOSH considers this to be 

16 the same? This statement cannot be allowed to 

17 

18 

19 were 

20 considered neutron buildings. A draft of the 

21 report, however, was not submitted to Margaret 

22 Ruttenber to verify this statement. If it 

Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups and 

I am going to talk about the Ruttenber 

database. I understand that Mr. El

stated yesterday that the two Rocky F

Neutron databases, NIOSH, NDRP and 

Ruttenber database, were the same with

significant difference

SH previous statement. 

 Did the Webster Dictionary change 

the definition of same when I wasn't looking? 

 The NDRP database covers 5,317 workers. 

NIOSH compared the two, they found that 

workers were in the Ruttenber database

were not on the NDRP. And this h

significance? 

go unchallenged. 

 The NIOSH report concluded that the 

two databases agree with which buildings
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 282

1 

2 

3 1 as a neutron building, whereas 

4 NIO ha

5 claims 

6 abase 

7 ld be 

8 lizes 

9 

10 

11 atabase. The answer is a 

12 resounding yes. Not a couple, not a few, but 

13 

14 w is 

15 5,000 

16 and 

17 

18 

19 s and worked for the 250 days, 

20 they would automatically be covered under the 

21 SEC. This is not true for the workers in the 

22 Ruttenber database. 

was, I wonder if Ms. Ruttenber would have 

concurred, since she has consistently regarded 

Building 88

SH s not. 

 NIOSH looked at a number of 

filed by the workers on the Ruttenber dat

and concluded that only one claim wou

adversely affected. This conclusion civi

the issue. The issue is whether there are 

workers missing from NIOSH's database that are 

on the Ruttenber d

thousands of workers. 

 And additionally, the revie

irrelevant. The NDRP covers the 

workers, yet not all of them have cancer

submitted claims. However, for the NDRP, if 

one of them did develop one of the 22 

specified cancer
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 283

1 

2 

3 d yet 

4 w the 

5 to determine who should be covered 

6 und th

7 t the 

8 or 

9 

10 

11 base has 4,163 workers who were monitored 

12 or should have been monitored for neutron 

13 

14 which 

15 real 

16 n in17 

18 

19 

20 Here was evidence. And instead of 

21 evaluating in thoroughly with the Working 

22 Group and SC&A, they simply dismissed it as 

The Board already decided that the 

NDRP was not accurate when you approved the 

small group to be covered by the SEC. An

we are to believe that the NDRP is no

Holy Grail 

er e SEC? 

 I want to remind everyone tha

SEC-covered workers who were monitored

should have been monitored for neutron 

radiation. It appears that the Ruttenber 

data

dose. 

 But this issue goes beyond

database is accurate. As I see it, the

issue is why did NIOSH refuse to do a

depth investigation of this database when they 

first learned of it in 2006? This was before 

the SEC was decided. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 284

1 

2 

3 the 

4 x for 

5 anium 

6 60. This building 

7 was upp

8 or of 

9 

10 

11 that 

12 arify 

13 pause 

14 Rocky 

15 n and the other technical 

16 documents for Rocky Flats may not have been as 

17 

18 

19 the 

20 Rocky Flats workers was over the day they 

21 voted on the SEC petition. But you now have 

22 before you new evidence. Evidence, perhaps, 

irrelevant. Were other documents or 

information similarly dismissed? I raise this 

question because ANWAG learned that

Department of Labor Site Exposure Matri

Rocky Flats shows that plutonium and ur

was present in Building 4

 s osedly a cold building. 

 Ms. Rachel Leiton, the Direct

the EEOICPA has reviewed some of the documents 

that indicate that these elements, and I 

quote, “may have been in Building 460 and

DOL plans to discuss this issue and cl

the documents of NIOSH.” It makes one 

to think that the research into the 

Flats SEC petitio

complete as required. 

 I am sure that some of the Board 

members think their responsibility to
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 285

1 

2 

3 the ote

4 &A to 

5 two 

6 ments 

7 rd to 

8 want 

9 

10 

11 k you 

12 hould 

13 that 

14 Work 

15 ve an 

16 oing 

17 

18 

19 So, we appreciate your input on this matter. 

20 MS. BARRIE: Thank you. And I do 

21 plan on being on for that update. 

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Very good. 

that if it was presented during the 

deliberations, may have changed the outcome of 

 v . 

 I urge the Board to task SC

perform a more detailed comparison of the

databases and to review the docu

Department of Labor has or will forwa

NIOSH. All the claimants and advocates

is the truth and I feel that we are not near 

that yet. Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Terrie, than

for your comments. And perhaps I s

indicate to you if you weren't aware, 

Mark Griffon will be reporting for the 

Group tomorrow and perhaps we will ha

opportunity to address some plans g

forward with regard to the Ruttenber database 

and actions that might come down the line. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 286

1 

2 

3 hone lines that 

4 ly today. 

5 

6 that 

7 ional 

8 n the 

9 

10 

11 add ss 

12 

13 that 

14 e the 

15 oard 

16 omorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. 

17 

18 Thank you very much. 

19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

20 went off the record at 5:24 p.m.) 

21 

22 

MS. BARRIE: Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Let me ask 

if there are others on the p

wish to address the assemb

(No response.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It appears

there are not. I do not have addit

individuals who have signed up here i

room today but let me give the opportunity if 

there are additional individuals who wish to 

re the assembly this afternoon. 

 (No response.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It appears

there are not. So, this will conclud

public comment period for today. The B

will reconvene t

and we, in the meantime, stand recessed. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

 287

1 

2 

3 

4 

5